IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 02/03/2006 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR Writ Appeal No. 479 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 3009 of 2005, and W.A.M.P.No.866/2005,W.P.M.P.Nos.3381, 2756 to 2758 of 2006. W.A.No. 479 of 2005 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Department of Home, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The Director General of Police, D.G.P. Office, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 3. The Additional Director General of Police, Special Task Force, Sathiyamangalam, Erode District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri District. 5. The Station House Officer, Kolathur Police Station, Dharmapuri District. .. Appellants/Respondents.
-Vs-
1. Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner.
2. The Joint Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Haddows Road, Chennai-6. .. 6th Respondent.
.. Respondents.
W.P.No. 3009 of 2005
Mrs. Muthulakshmi,
W/o. Munusamy Veerappan,
T.M.B. Nagar, Puthuchampalli,
Mettur Dam-2, Salem District.
.. Petitioner.
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary,
Department of Home,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police,
D.G.P.Office, Mylapore,
Chennai-4.
3. The Additional Director General of Police,
Special Task Force, Sathiyamangalam,
Erode District.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri District.
5. The Station House Officer,
Kolathur Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
6. The Joint Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Haddows Road, Chennai-6.
.. Respondents.
Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order in so far
as it relates to Clause (ii) of para 12 of order date 4 -2-2005 and partly
allowing in portion of the order dated 7-2-2005 in so far as para 6 of the
modification order, made in Writ Petition No. 3009/2005 by Single Judge of
this Court; and
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 6th respondent herein to depute a competent
officer to take up the investigation of Crime No. 1221/2004 dated 19-10-2004
from the file of 5th respondent and investigate the same under the supervision
of the 6th respondent and procedure as per law, also by invoking the relevant
section of Indian Penal Code against the erring 3rd respondent personnel,
award costs.
!Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Additional Advocate General,
assisted by Mr. D. Krishnakumar, Special Govt.,
Pleader:- For Appellants in W.A.No.479/2005.
^Mr. R. Sankarasubbu:- For 1st Respondent in W.A.479
of 2005, and for Petitioner in W.P.No.3009/2005.
Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Additional Advocate General,
assisted by Mr. D. Krishnakumar, Special Government
Pleader and Mr. C. Manishankar, Special Public
Prosecutor for Respondents in W.P.No. 3009/2005,
and for R-2 in Writ Appeal No.479/2005.
:COMMON JUDGEMENT
(Judgement of the Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,)
Home Department of Government of Tamil Nadu and their officers,
aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4-2-20 05 in so far
as it relates to Clause (ii) of para 12, and partly allowing in portion of the
order dated 7-2-2005 in so far as para 6 of the Modification Order, made in
Writ Petition No. 3009/2005, have filed Writ Appeal No. 479 of 2005.
2. Muthulakshmi, wife of Munusamy Veerappan, Puthuchampally, Mettur
Dam-2, Salem District, has filed Writ Petition No. 3009/2 005 praying for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing 6th respondent-Joint Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation, Haddows Road, Chennai-6 to depute a competent
officer to take up the investigation of Crime No. 1221 of 2004 dated
19-10-2004 from the file of 5th respondent-Station House Officer, Kolathur
Police Station, Dharmapuri District and investigate the same under the
supervision of 6th respondent i.e., C.B.I as per law against the third
respondent-Additional Director General of Police, Special Task Force,
Sathiyamangalam, Erode District.
3. Inasmuch as the Writ Appeal filed by the Government is against an
interim direction pending disposal of the main writ petition and in view of
the fact that both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are taken up together
for disposed, let us consider the case of the writ petitioner, namely,
Muthulakshmi. According to her, the Special Task Force allegedly killed her
husband deceased Munusamy Veerappan (hereinafter referred to as “Veerappan”)
along with his three accomplices in an encounter at Padi in Dharmapuri
District. The Tamil Nadu Police had tortured her husband in the year 1985.
Therefore, he escaped from their custody into the forest. Though the citizens
of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and Kerala heaved a sigh of relief at the
elimination of her husband, Veerappan, the sequence of events that lead to
shoot out and the death of her husband, has caused suspicion in the minds of
well informed persons and enlightened citizens. The Chief of the Special Task
Force of Karnataka Mr. Jyothi Prakash Mirji has stated that whether Veerappan
committed suicide would be probed, and thus there is an element of suspicion
in the death of Veerappan and his accomplices at the hand of Special Task
Force of Tamil Nadu. Though four persons, including her husband were killed
in an alleged encounter on 18-10-2004, a case was filed in Crime No.
1221/2004 under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under
Sections 307, 323 I.P.C., read with Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act and
4 (b) of Explosive Substance Act against her husband and three others, the
fifth respondent has not deliberately registered F.I.R. under Section 302
I.P.C. against the third respondent herein, subsequently who are all involved
in the murder of her husband and 3 others.
4. It is further stated that though the suspicion over the death of
her husband is not yet cleared, there are so many contradictions in the
statements of Mr. Vijayakumar, I.P.S., Chief of Special Task Force, Tamil
Nadu, who claimed that her husband was killed in an encounter and in the
statement of Mr. Jothi Prakash Mirji, Chief of Special Task Force, Karnataka,
who claimed that Veerappan might have committed suicide, the State Governments
of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have played up the incident and attempted to take
credit for the gunning down of the brigand and hastily announced rewards and
largesse for the Special Task Force personnel. The Tamil Nadu Government has
given lagesse to the tune of Rs.22.5 Crores which include Rs. 3 Lakhs each
cash award, a housing plot and accelerated promotion for all the 752 Special
Task Force (S.T.F in short) personnel.
5. It is her further claim that the Government of Tamil Nadu are
showing undue haste to honour the S.T.F personnel in Tamil Nadu only to create
a record and register it in history for the posterity to glorify the Tamil
Nadu Police. There is an apprehension in the minds of general public that her
husband might have committed suicide when cornered by the S.T.F., personnel.
The S.T.F., personnel have miserably failed to nab her husband alive, instead
they ventured to kill him or allowed him to commit suicide. The Chief of
S.T.F., has killed several persons in the name of encounters. Hundreds of
victims who lost their lives and materials of excesses committed by the S.
T.F.. personnel, including rape and murder were unfortunately forgotten by
the Government of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The respondents have shown total
indifference to the rights of the victims of crime S.T. F., personnel and
such an indifference will erode faith of the society in general and the
victims of crime in particular in the country’s democracy.
6. According to her, post-mortem of her husband’s body was done in
Government General Hospital, Dharmapuri on 19-10-2004. Though the post-mortem
doctors have mentioned so many injuries on the dead body, they deliberately
omitted some major and controversial injuries on the dead body of her husband
namely, injury on his right hand fingers. The post-mortem report did not
disclose about the injuries on his legs below the hip. The post-mortem has
not been done properly. The post-mortem report is vague and it has been done
by incompetent medical officers. Her husband’s murder has created so many
suspicions.
7. It is further stated that the fact finding team, which was
comprised eight Human Rights Organisations, has gone to the occurrence place,
enquired and collected materials from the general public. The team has issued
a report and also given press release on 18-01-2005 stating that her husband
and three others were given anaesthetic through buttermilk by her relatives,
which showed that the third respondent has captured her husband and 3 others
after they become unconscious because of the given anaesthetic. The Chief of
S.T.F. has also agreed to conduct re-post-mortem. One Mr. Haribabu, who is
an Advocate and also Convenor of the Fact Finding Team, has made a
representation dated 15-11-2004 to the fourth respondent for re-postmortem of
the dead body of her husband. No action has been taken so far.
8. On behalf of Government of Tamil Nadu, first respondent, the
Additional Secretary to the Government, Home Department, has filed a counter
affidavit wherein it is stated that petitioner’s husband Veerappan, Son of
Koose Munusamy of Gopinatham village in Karnataka State of Tamil origin was a
hard core criminal. During the period 1978-2001, he had killed 2000 male
elephants and stolen 40,000 kgs of tusks (worth Rs.12 crores), denuded the
forests of sandalwood in a large scale and murdered 124 persons belonging to
Police, Forests, Civilians of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Further, he abducted
45 persons. When he abducted Dr. Rajkumar, Karnataka Cine fame actor, the
lives and properties of the entire Tamil Community in Karnataka were under
constant threat besides his activities brought shame to the State as well as
to the country and disgrace to the humanity.
9. In order to prevent Veerappan and his gang from committing
atrocities and to nab them, the operation Vanamalai was launched in 1990,
jointly by the Governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Government of Tamil
Nadu formed a Special Task Force (STF) on 01-05-19 93 with 200 selective
policemen from different wings of the police department under the then
Additional Director General of Police. Subsequently, regular Special Task
Force was formed with strength of 239 police personnel. In the year 1999, a
post of Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force was created. After
release of the abducted Kannada Cine actor Dr. Rajkumar on 15-11-2000, since
the forest brigand Veerappan was eluding the Special Task Force personnel, the
Government sanctioned an additional post of Deputy Inspector General of Police
and two Superintendents of Police for Special Task Force on 22-11-2 000 for
intensive combing operations and to nab the forest brigand alive. In addition
to this, personnel of Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion, Local Police,
Commando Police personnel and forest personnel had also been pressed into
service and thereby the total number of personnel involved in the operation
was increased to 826 in December, 2 000.
10. After revamping and activating the S.T.F during June, 2001,
developments activities have been initiated to make the Special Task Force
people-friendly and to isolate the Forest Brigand Veerappan from the local
people. Due to manipulation of Veerappan a land mine exploded in the forest
area, wherein Veerappan and his gang were hiding resulting in the death of 5
Police Constables and two forest watchers. The Government of Tamil Nadu
sanctioned a financial incentive of Rs.50,000/- to those who give useful
information leading to the arrest of Veerappan and his gang. In G.O.Ms.No.
615, Home dated 02-07-2001 orders were issued enhancing the reward amount from
Rs.20 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs to those who capture/giving clues leading to the
capture of the forest brigand Veerappan and his brother Arjunan. The
Government also sanctioned a reward of Rs.15 lakhs to those who give vital
clue to nab Sethukuli Govindan and the Government sanctioned the reward amount
of Rs.10 lakhs to those who give vital clue to nab other members (for each) of
the dreaded Veerappan gang. While the police party attempted to capture
Veerappan and his associates, they opened fire towards the police party and in
the encounter they were killed. Therefore, the brave personnel of the Special
Task Force deserve honour and reward and the Government have considered the
services of the personnel of Special Task Force from the rank of the
Additional Director General of Police, Special Task Force to police
constables, cooks and orderlies, who have risked their lives and sacrificed
their safety and the comfort of their homes, spending years away from their
families, leading dangerous lives in the thick Sathyamangalam forest, braving
hardship and sickness, courting danger and death every day. Hence, it was
decided to award each man and Officer of the Special Task Force. Further,
recognizing the bravery is the duty of the Government, and in doing so, the
Government sanctioned the cash awards and other benefits and thereby to
motivate the police force.
11. The report of Justice A.J. Sadashiva panel constituted by the
National Human Rights Commission to enquire into alleged excesses committed by
the Joint Special Task Force was submitted to the National Human Rights
Commission on 02-12-2003. The National Human Rights Commission sought for
remarks of the State Governments.
12. Regarding the post-mortem and the doctors who conducted, it is
stated that a team of competent doctors conducted a thorough post-mortem
examination on the dead bodies of the deceased Veerappan and three others and
the entire post-mortem was video graphed. Further, the photos of the deceased
persons were taken from different angles showing all the injuries and the said
video/tape and the photos with negatives were handed over to the Revenue
Divisional Officer by the Investigation officer in Dharmapuri Police Station
Crime No. 1221 /2004. All the three doctors who conducted post-mortem are
well experienced and competent in conducting post-mortem examination of dead
bodies involved in medico-legal cases and in particular experienced in
conducting post-mortem of dead bodies whose death were caused by Fire
Arms/Explosives.
13. In the proceedings No.ROC.58187/04/C1 dated 19-10-20 04, the
Collector has ordered an enquiry under Section 150 (3) of Police Standing
Order into the death of Veerappan and his close associates. Accordingly, the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri have
issued notices to the general public intimating the date of magisterial
enquiry, as 01-11-2004 and 02-11-2004. As per the directions of this Court,
the Revenue Divisional Officer completed the enquiry and submitted the report
to the Government through District Collector on 31-03-2005. The report
discloses, that during the enquiry 196 witnesses have been examined. Experts
reports from Biology, Serology, Ballistic, Viscera, Physical, explosive, etc.,
have been obtained and considered by Revenue Divisional Officer. Considering
all the statements obtained from the witnesses and reports, the Revenue
Divisional Officer has concluded that it is an intelligence operation which
was evolved and in such an operation, the Special Task Force personnel was
left with no other option except to open fire in self defence and in their
attempt to apprehend or arrest the said dreaded criminals Veerappan and three
others. In the encounter Veerappan, Chandregowda, Sethumani and Sethukuli
Govindan were killed. The Revenue Divisional Officer has concluded that the
action of the Special Task Force personnel is justified and the Government
have issued orders accepting the findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer.
The petitioner has no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer for investigation
by C.B.I is not maintainable. Further, concurrence of the State Government is
necessary for entrusting a case for investigation by the C.B.I.
14. The third respondent namely, K. Vijaykumar, I.P.S., Additional
Director General of Police, Special Task Force, Sathyamangalam has filed a
counter affidavit highlighting the entire steps taken by them for apprehending
Veerappan and his gang and the ultimate operation that had taken place on
18-10-2004. Regarding shoot out, it is stated that Veerappan and his
associate criminals who were threatening two State Governments for the past 20
years, while the police party attempted to capture them, Veerappan and his
associates fired towards the police party and in the encounter, they met their
end and so the brave personnel of the S.T.F deserve honour and reward and
there is nothing wrong in recognizing their courage by awarding the rewards.
While denying the encounter as a fake encounter, different police officials
had to open fire due to unavoidable circumstances, which warranted firing for
self defence. Various other encounters referred to in the affidavit, it is
stated that the said encounters were conducted by different police officers
and as a conscientious officer, he has discharged his duty with devotion and
in good faith. Further, as per the orders of the Government, the entire
incident was enquired by the Revenue Divisional Officer. In fact, the
petitioner also participated in the said enquiry. There cannot be a second or
successive First Information Report in regard to the same incident/occurrence.
Admittedly, in this case already a case in Dharmapuri Police Station Crime No.
1221/2004 was registered and because of the death, the matter is being
enquired by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and there cannot be a
parallel investigation and the Station House Officer can continue
investigation only after enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer is over.
After enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the investigation officer in
Crime No. 1221/2004 can investigate the case and submit a final report to the
court concerned. The prayer for investigation by the Central Bureau of
Investigation is not maintainable and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
15. Fifth respondent-Inspector of Police, Station House Officer,
Kolathur Police Station, Mettur Taluk, Salem District has filed a counter
affidavit wherein he denied the allegation that he has not deliberately
registered F.I.R. under Section 302 I.P.C., against the third respondent and
that there is no necessity to register such an F.I.R. as already a case has
been registered regarding the same occurrence in Dharmapuri Town Police
Station Crime no. 1221/2004. He is not in any way connected with the case
file of Dharmapuri Town Police Station Crime No. 1221/2004. However, he has
taken the petition on the file of Kolathur Police Station C.S.R.No. 383/2004
on 13-11-20 04 and as per the rules and procedure, the said petition was
transferred to the investigation officer Thiru P. Krishnaraj, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District for further action. The said
investigation officer has forwarded the said petition to the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri to take it on file as per 160 (3) Cr.P.C.
16. In the light of the above pleadings, we heard Mr. R.
Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. A.L. Somayaji,
learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
17. After taking us through the relevant materials, Mr. R.
Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has raised
the following contentions:
i) The complaint of the petitioner dated 08-11-2004 has not been registered so
far and no action taken till this date;
ii) The Government have no right to kill any one much less Veerappan even for
self defence and direction of the Government in this regard in G.O.Ms.No.
1652 Home dated 9-11-1993 cannot be sustained.
iii) Three days prior to the alleged incident on 18-10-2004, Veerappan and his
associates were captured and tortured by the S.T. F. personnel;
iv) The petitioner has a reliable information that her husband Veerappan was
administered anaesthetic material, due to which he was killed;
v) The investigation by the Human Rights activities lead to a different
conclusion regarding cause of her husband’s death; hence enquiry by Central
Bureau of Investigation is a must;
vi) The various instructions of the Human Rights Commission have not been
followed, but violated.
18. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General, met all
the contentions. According to him, the details furnished in the counter
affidavit of the first and third respondents are answers to all the
contentions. He further pointed out that the petitioner is not consistent
with her version regarding cause of death of her husband. Even the complaint
is an after thought. He further contended that the so-called Human Rights
Organisations have no sanctity and their alleged reports have no value. In
view of the enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer and his report that has
been accepted by the Government, no further enquiry by agency like Central
Bureau of Investigation is warranted. According to him, the petitioner having
appeared in the enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer and considering
the fact that the Government have accepted the report of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, there was no case for further enquiry by other agency like
Central Bureau of Investigation.
19. We have perused the materials placed by the petitioner, various
details furnished in the counter affidavit of the respondents and rival
contentions of the counsel for petitioner as well as respondents.
20. It is the case of the State that Veerappan, deceased in this case
was a notorious criminal and during the period 1978-2001 , he had murdered 124
persons and abducted 45 persons belonging to Police, Forest Deppartments and
civilians of States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. He had also killed 2000 male
elephants and stolen 40,000 kgs. Of tusks (worth Rs.12 crores), denuded the
forests of Sandal Wood in a large scale. As his activities brought shame to
the State and gave constant threat to the lives and properties of the people
of both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, and in order to prevent Veerappan and his
gang from killing human beings and animals and committing atrocities and to
nab them, the Tamil Nadu Government formed a team called ” Special Task Force”
in the year 1993, comprising police and forest personnel. The series of
attempts to nab them ended in vain. It is stated that while police party
attempted to capture Veerappan and his associates, they opened fire towards
the police party and in the encounter on 18-10-2004, he and his gang of three
persons were killed by the S.T.F. personnel, headed by Mr. Vijaykumar,
I.P.S., Chief of S.T.F. Muthulakshmi, wife of the deceased Veerappan has come
forward with this Writ Petition raising suspicion over the killing of her
husband, the way in which the post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of
her deceased husband, the haste action of the Government in granting huge
incentives, rewards to the personnel involving in the operation and
non-registering her complaint by the police. She has apprehended that her
husband was tortured by the S.T.F. personnel and might have committed
suicide, and that the S.T.F. personnel instead of nabbing him alive, killed
him or allowed to commit suicide. She further stated that during post-mortem,
several injuries found on her husband’s dead body have not been traced out and
brought to light by the Postmortem doctors. The request of her and other
Human Rights activists for re-post-mortem of the body of Veerappan has not
been considered. According to her, there are human rights violations.
Therefore, she prays for entrusting the investigation of this case with the
Central Bureau of Investigation. We are very well conscious of the fact that
though Veerappan and his associates are dreaded criminals, still their liberty
to life cannot be taken away without following proper procedure. Keeping it
in our mind, we will see whether the reasons and contentions raised by the
said Muthulakshmi fulfil the requirements of the Law warranting for ordering
investigation of Crime No. 1221/2004 pending on the file of Station House
Officer, Kolathur Police Station to the Central Bureau of Investigation in the
following order.
21. Before considering the contentions in seriatim, it is useful to
refer the relief sought for in the main writ petition. Though we have already
stated in the earlier part of this judgment, for the sake of repetition, the
only relief prayed in the writ petition by the writ petitioner, wife of
Veerappan, is to entrust the investigation in Crime No. 1221/2004 of Station
House Officer, Kolathur Police Station, which is pending, on the sixth
respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as
“C.B.I.”). Now we have to see whether the petitioner has made out a case in
order to hand over the investigation to C.B.I.
22. The first contention of Mr. R. Sakarasubbu is that though a
complaint was made by the petitioner as early as 08-11-2004 against Chief of
S.T.F and their officers, the same has not been registered and no action
taken. According to him, when a cognizable offence is made out, it is proper
on the part of the Station House Officer to register it in accordance with the
Code of Criminal Procedure and deal with the same. With reference to the said
contention, the fifth respondent-Station House Officer, Kolathur Police
Station has filed a counter affidavit dated 30-03-2005 that on receipt of the
petition on the file of Kolathur Police Station in C.S.R.No. 383/2004 on 13-1
1-2004 as per the rules and procedure the same was transferred to the
investigation officer Thiru P. Krishnaraj, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri District for further action. It is further stated that the said
investigation officer has forwarded the said petition to the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri to take it on file as per Section 160 (3)
Cr.P.C. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri is the enquiry officer
nominated by the District Collector, Dharmapuri to conduct enquiry under Order
150 (3) of Police Standing Order. Apart from this, M. Ramasamy, Inspector of
Police, Dharmapuri Town Police Station, who has not been impleaded as a party
in the said writ petition, has filed an affidavit to explain the facts in
respect of the complaint dated 8-11-2004. In para 3 of his affidavit, he has
specifically stated that no such petition alleged to have been sent by
Thirumathi Muthulakshmi was received either by post or in person by him; hence
the question of registering F.I.R for taking action against the S.T.F.
personnel by him did not arise. This specific averment of the Inspector of
Police, Dharmapuri Town Police Station has not been denied by the petitioner
by filing counter or reply. In view of the information of 5th respondent and
of the fact that her complaint has been forwarded to the Revenue Divisional
Officer, who conducted enquiry relating to the death of Veerappan and his
associates before whom the petitioner also deposed, the grievance expressed by
the petitioner as to the fate of her alleged complaint dated 8-11-2004 is
liable to be rejected.
23. Since the rest of the contentions/allegations are
inter-connected, they are being considered in the following paragraphs. Mr.
R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for petitioner, drew our attention to
G.O.Ms.No. 1652 Home (Police VIII) Department dated 9-11-1993, and submitted
that the Government have no right to kill any one, including Veerappan. Para
4 of the G.O., reads thus:
“Based on the decision mentioned in para 3 above the Government, in
modification of orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 2042, Home, dated 10-9 -90
sanction a award of Rs.20/- lakhs (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) to those who
capture or give clue leading to the capture or kill the forest brigand
Veerappan and his brother Arjunan, as the share of this Government”.
Giving emphasis to the said direction, he vehemently contended that
the Government was not justified in permitting any one to kill Veerappan. On
a careful scrutiny of the entire Government Order, we find that the intention
of the Government, as reflected in para 4, is not in the manner, as
interpreted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As rightly pointed out
by the learned Additional Advocate General, consequent on the death of five
Police Constables and two Forest Watchers due to explosion of a land mine
reported to have been manipulated by Veerappan in the forest area, an urgent
High Level Meeting was convened on 11-04-1993, in which the Chief Ministers of
both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka participated. As the incident of killing seven
officials was so magnitude, it was decided to give a reward of Rs.40 lakhs
(share of Tamil Nadu Rs.20 lakhs plus share of Karnataka Rs.20 lakhs = Total
Rs.40 lakhs) to those who capture the notorious forest brigand Veerappan and
his brother Arjunan. When we read para 4 keeping in mind the intention of the
Government, it leads to a conclusion that the share of the State Government,
namely, Rs.20 lakhs will be paid to those who capture or give clue leading to
the capture or kill the forest brigand Veerappan and his brother Arjunan. In
other words, the emphasis is that those who capture or give clue leading to
the capture or kill the forest brigand Veerappan and his brother Arjunan. The
clue referred to in para 4 indicates not only for capturing, but also for
killing them. In the light of the details furnished by the State Government
with regard to his activities for the last 20 years, killing of several
persons, including personnel of Police and Forest Departments of both States
of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, abducting of several persons, pouching of animals
such as Elephants, stealing of tusks, denuding the forests of sandalwood etc.,
the reward announced by the Government cannot be found fault with. The reward
was granted by the Government within their power and jurisdiction meant for
bravery. Therefore, we find no substance in the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
24. The next point to be considered is the allegation regarding
suspicion over the death of Veerappan. As rightly pointed out by Mr. A.L.
Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General, the petitioner herself is not
consistent in her stand. In her affidavit filed in support of the present
writ petition, when she said in one place that her husband might have
committed suicide, she expressed in another place that he was administered
anaesthetic through butter milk by her relatives. Like-wise, in another
paragraph it is stated by her that Mr. Jyothi Prakash Mirji, Chief of Special
Task Force of Karnataka had stated that whether Veerappan committed suicide
would be probed. In the affidavit she also raised doubt about the capability
and capacity of the three Doctors who conducted post-mortem on the body of
Veerappan and his associates. According to her, they are unqualified Doctors.
25. Coming to the statement said to have been made by Chief of
S.T.F., Karnataka, first of all, he is not a party in this writ petition to
convey his stand. Even other-wise, in the light of the stand taken by the
State Government and the Additional Director General of Police, namely, Chief
of Special Task Force in their separate counter affidavit, we are of the view
that the said allegation has not been substantiated.
26. Coming to the allegations made against post-mortem Doctors,
according to her, all the three are unqualified and the injuries mentioned in
their report are not tallying with the injuries found on the body of
Veerappan. In the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary, Home Department,
after denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is specifically
stated that post-mortem had been done by the competent medical officers. It
is further stated that Dr. R. Vallinayagam, M.D., is a Professor of Forensic
Medicine attached with Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem
and he has put in 20 years of service and conducted post-mortem examination of
15,000 dead bodies. The other Doctor namely P.D. Subramanian has put in 32
years of service as Civil Assistant Surgeon and in the course of his duty he
has conducted post-mortem examination of about 5,000 dead bodies. The other
Doctor namely Dr. V. Prabakaran has put in 32 years of Civil Assistant
Surgeon and in the course of his duty, he has conducted post-mortem
examination of about 6,000 dead bodies. It is further stated that all of them
are experienced and competent in conducting post-mortem examination of dead
bodies involved in medico-legal cases and in particular experienced in
conducting post-mortem of dead bodies whose death were caused by Fire
Arms/Explosives. The other information in the counter affidavit shows that
the post-mortem started at 7.30 A.M. on 19-10-2004. Rigor Mortis could have
developed 6 hours prior to the commencement of the post-mortem. Regarding the
claim that exact nature of lacerated wound was not mentioned, it is stated
that the same was mentioned in the post-mortem certificate as injury No.1 .
Further, injured place was dissected and preserved in formalin solution and
sent for Ballistic Analysis to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Chennai.
Further, it is stated that bullet entry wound will take any size and shape
according to the velocity and size of the bullet subject to existence of any
intervening foreign body in between before piercing the body. There is cavity
within skull, which is called cranial cavity in which brain is situated. This
is mentioned as cavity by the Doctor. The bullet appears to have entered
through left side of the forehead (entry wound injury No,.1 mentioned in
postmortem certificate) and exit wound present on the right side of the lower
part of the occipital region mentioned in the post-mortem certificate as
injury No.2. Regarding the alleged injury, his further explanation was that
there is bony defect 4 x 4.5 c.m. present in the frontal bone with radiating
fissures on right side of the bony defect to a length of 8 c.m and the left
side of the bony defect to a length of 5 c.m. He further explained that due
to high velocity of the missile ( bullets) entering into the left side cranial
cavity, the left side of the orbit was found to be collapsed. This is
mentioned as injury No.1 in the post-mortem certificate. Due to this, eye has
been drawn inwards. Except the cataract mentioned in the post-mortem
certificate, the eye ball was in good condition. The eye ball was completely
examined and there is no need to send ophthalmic surgeon for opinion and was
not preserved. It is also stated that the entire post-mortem was video
graphed. The details furnished in the counter affidavit of the first
respondent show that all the 3 post-mortem Doctors are well experienced and
conducted post-mortem of several dead bodies. Further, as informed, the
entire post-mortem was video graphed. We have also verified the injuries in
the post-mortem certificates issued by the three Doctors and we are satisfied
that there is no basis for the allegations of the petitioner.
27. Regarding the claim that her husband might have committed suicide
after the capture by the S.T.F and further allegation that he was administered
anaesthetic substance through butter milk by her relative are all only
hear-say and not substantiated. As rightly pointed out, first of all, the
petitioner herself is not sure of her complaint and even otherwise there is no
basis for her inconsistent stand regarding cause of death of her husband.
28. Though it is stated that some fact finding authorities/mission
after enquiry reported that Veerappan and 3 others were given anaesthetic
through butter milk by their relatives, first of all, as pointed out in the
counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 3, there is no sanctity or statutory or
legal status to enquire into the action taken by the police. In other words,
there is no legal sanctity for the said fact finding team’s report and its
press release on 18-1 1-2005 cannot be a ground to challenge the action taken
by the police. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is
specifically stated that the self-styled Human Rights Organisations, whose
competence is disputed under the guise of Fact Finding Team go to the villages
and lure the innocent villagers and get some statements against the S.T.F with
some ulterior motive. As rightly pointed out, if they are really interested
and if they are aware of any facts, nothing prevented them by appearing before
the Revenue Divisional Officer during the enquiry and giving statements.
Respondents 1 and 3 have specifically denied the statement of the Fact Finding
Team that the petitioner’s husband and his 3 associates were given anaesthetic
through butter milk and third respondent has captured her husband and his 3
associates after they became unconscious because of the anaesthetic. In the
counter affidavit the third respondent has specifically denied that all such
averments are hearsay, false and baseless and do not deserve any
consideration. Except the allegation in the affidavit of the petitioner,
inasmuch as the so-called organisations are not approved either by the Human
Rights Commission or authorised by the State Government, their statements in
the light of the specific denial by respondents 1 and 3 cannot be taken as
authentic. Further, the better course for the so-called organisations is to
highlight the same before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who was appointed to
go into the death of Veerappan and his associates. Hence, we hold that all
the contrary averments in the affidavit of the petitioner are liable to be
rejected.
29. Though we are satisfied with the facts and materials placed that
there is no substance in the allegation made by the petitioner, Mr. R.
Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on several decisions
which we will refer hereunder. The first decision relied on by him is in the
case of SAWINDER SINGH GROVER, RE [1 994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1464] which
related to custodial death. It further reveals the Attorney General appeared
for the Government conceded for investigation by C.B.I. The other decision in
INDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1653] related
to abduction of 7 persons in the age group of 85 to 14 by senior police
officer. The Honourable Supreme Court after finding that the State police
acting leisurely and in irresponsible manner, ordered C.B. I enquiry. The
other decision in KASHMERI DEVI v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [1988 Supreme Court
Cases (Cri) 864] pertained to death in police custody for which C.B.I enquiry
was ordered. The fourth decision is in K.G. KANNABIRAN v. CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF A.P., [1997 (4) Andhra Law Times Reports 541]. In that case one
Thiru T. Madhusudan Raj Yadav, Secretary of an Organisation, was shot dead by
police as a Naxalite in an alleged encounter. The Supreme Court after finding
that the said organisation is not a banned one and in the light of the
peculiar factual position, directed the C.B.I. to conduct enquiry. The fifth
decision is in NILABATI BEHERA v. STATE OF ORISSA [1993 Supreme Court Cases
(cri) 527] which also relates to custodial death wherein the Supreme Court
directed the State Government to pay compensation. There is no order for
enquiry by C.B.I. The sixth decision is in the case of RAGHBIR SINGH v.
STATE OF HARYANA [1980 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 526] which also relates to
custodial death. The Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the death of a person
taken for interrogation. Here again, no order was passed for enquiry by the
C.B.I. The seventh decision relied on by him is in L. VIJAY KUMAR v. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, A.P., [air 1978 S.C. 1485] in and by which since the criminal
case relating to the incident was pending, the Supreme Court deprecated the
cash award ordered by the Government. Here again, there is no order for C.B.I
enquiry and the facts in that case is not applicable to the case on hand and
the same are distinguishable. The eighth case referred to by him is in
SHAKILA ABIDUL GAFAR KHAN v. VASANT RAGHUNATH DHOBLE [2003 Supreme Court
Cases (Cri) 1918 which relates to inflicting injuries in custody. Here again,
no order for C.B.I enquiry. The ninth decision is in the case of NIRANJAN
SINGH v. PRABHAKAR RAJARAM KHAROTA [1980 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 508] which
also relates to torture and injuries in custody. Here again, no order for
C.B.I enquiry. The tenth decision relied on by him is in RAMESHCHANDRA
NANDLAL PARIKH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [2006 (1) Supreme 195] wherein Their
Lordships have held that second complaint is not in respect of the same
incident of malfeasance and misfeasance and that it cannot be quashed. The
said decision is not applicable to the present case. The eleventh decision
relied on by the petitioner is in KHEDAT MAZDOOR CHETNA SANGATH v. STATE OF
M.P. [1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1643] which relates to protest by
tribals against construction of Sardar Sarovar Dam on the river of Narmada,
for which the Supreme Court ordered C.B.I enquiry. The said decision is also
not applicable to the case on hand. In the case of R.S. SODHI v. STATE OF
U.P [1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 248] ten persons were killed in an
encounter by Punjab Militants and local police. In order to clear doubts in
the minds of police, the Supreme Court ordered C.B.I enquiry. Considering the
factual details furnished and the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer
relating to the said incident, we are of the view that the said decision is
also not applicable to the case on hand. The next decision is in the case of
D.K. BASU v. STATE OF W.B., reported in 1997 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 92
which also relates to custodial death, wherein the Supreme Court has directed
payment of compensation. The last decision relied on by the petitioner is in
the case of UPKAR SINGH v. VED PRAKASH, reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases
(Cri) 211 wherein the Supreme Court has held that counter- complaint is
permissible and not prohibited under Code of Criminal Procedure. We will
discuss the applicability of the said decisions in the later part of our
order. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, all
the decisions relied on by Mr. R. Sankarasubbu relate to custodial death,
torture/causing injuries in custody etc., and awarding compensation for the
victims. Considering the attitude and stand taken by the Government, the
Supreme Court ordered C.B.I enquiry in those cases.
30. Learned Additional Advocate General has brought to our notice the
order passed by the Honourable First Bench of this Court dated 11-02-2006 in
Writ Petition No. 41405 of 2005 filed by the very same petitioner namely,
Mrs. Muthulakshmi praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents (Government of Tamil Nadu and Government of Karnataka) to
prosecute the offenders under the Indian Penal Code and to pay compensation of
a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to all the victims separately who are all affected by
the Joint Special Task Force (JSTF). Their Lordships, after recording the
fact that report of Justice A.J. Sadashiva was under consideration before the
National Human Rights Commission, and that the remedy of the petitioner is to
move the National Human Rights Commission for appropriate reliefs, disposed of
the said writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the
Commission for appropriate relief. In this regard, it is relevant to point
out that National Human Rights Commission appointed a panel headed by Justice
A.J. Sadashiva to enquire into alleged excess committed by the JSTF. In para
10 of the counter affidavit of the first respondent it is stated that the said
panel submitted its report to the National Human Rights Commission on
2-12-2003, and that the National Human Rights Commission sought for remarks of
the State Government. According to the learned Additional Advocate General,
the State Government have submitted their comments to the National Human
Rights Commission.
31. In T.T. ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA, reported in (2001) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 181, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that there could be no
second First Information Report (F.I.R) and no fresh investigation on receipt
of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or
same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. Their
Lordships have further held that only information about commission of a
cognizable offence which was first entered in station house diary by officer
in charge of the police station could be regarded as F.I.R under Section 154
Cr.P.C. and that all such subsequent information will be covered by Section
162. It was further held that officer in charge of the police station has to
investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the F.I.R but also
other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the
same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as
provided in Section 173. It was also held that after conclusion of
investigation pursuant to filing of the F.I.R and submission of report under
Section 173 (2), the officer in charge of the police station comes across any
further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further
investigation, normally with the leave of the court and forward the further
evidence, if any collected, with further report or reports under Section
173(8). It is true that the above decision in T.T. Antony’s case has been
taken into consideration by the Honourable Supreme Court in the subsequent
decision in Upkar Singh’s case [2005 S.C.C. (Cri) 211] cited supra. It makes
it clear that filing a counter complaint is permissible. The latest position
as seen from the Upkar Singh’s case is that prohibition noticed in T.T.
Antony’s case (cited supra) does not apply to counter complaint to the accused
in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the
said incident. In view of the legal position as enunciated in Upkar Singh’s
case, the complaint/ representation dated 8-11-2004 though is maintainable, as
rightly pointed out, since the entire incident was probed by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate-Revenue Divisional Officer, the same was forwarded to
the Deputy Superintendent of Police-investigation officer, Dharmapuri Town who
in turn placed the same before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue
Divisional Officer in his report in para 59 has accepted the receipt of the
same reference in C.S.R. 383/2004 from the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri for his enquiry. He also observed that all the connected papers in
the C.S.R.383/2004 were received and filed in his enquiry and the same was
enclosed as an annexure. In such a circumstance, we are of the view that the
grievance of the petitioner had been gone into by the Revenue Divisional
Officer and his enquiry report covers the complaint of the petitioner dated
8-11-2004.
32. Learned Additional Advocate General heavily relied on the
observation and conclusion made by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in
VANDANA VIKAS WAGHMARE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, reported in 1998 Crl.L.J.
4295. It relates to an encounter between group of underworld criminals and
the police. The Division Bench after finding that within the precinet of the
Metropolis of Mumbai, the encounters between the underworld dons and the
police take place and in which either of the parties, is being killed, and on
going through the factual details furnished by both parties, have concluded
that ” we are fully satisfied that the activities of the police in dealing
with the three dreaded gangsters are within the legal ambit and that they have
not done anything beyond, for, Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 13 9 of the Bombay
Police Manual, Vol. VIII provides proper guidance to the police party. The
Division Bench has also held: (para 33)
“33. While accepting the case of the police, we find that there is no reason
to discard what has stated by the three police officers on oath and the police
officers resisted the case of the petitioners, particularly when the deceased
were involved in number of serious crimes. There is no basis for ordering the
enquiry by any other agency, and if so, it is bound to demoralise the police
force and dissuade them from doing their lawful duty. Therefore, in our view,
it would be against the public interest to order the judicial enquiry or other
enquiries as asked for unless there is good reason to hold prima facie that
the case of encounter made out was false.”
33. Learned Additional Advocate General heavily relied on the
following conclusion/direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ABDUL KAREEN v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA [(2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 710]: (para 31)
“31. What causes us the gravest disquiet is that when, not so very long back,
as the record shows, his gang had been considerably reduced, Veerappan was not
pursued and apprehended and now, as the statements in the affidavit filed on
behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu show, Veerappan is operating in the forest
that has been his hideout for 10 years or more along with secessionist Tamil
elements. It seems to us certain that Veerappan will continue with his life
of crime and very likely that those crimes will have anti-national
objectives.”
In the concurrent judgement, Sabharwal, J., (as His Lordship then was) has
held: (para 44 and 45)
“44. Besides the eight questions noticed in the main judgment, the question
and aspect of association of Veerappan with those having secessionist
aspirations were also not considered. Further, though it may have been
considered as to what happened on 1st August, immediately after the abduction
of Rajkumar, but what does not seem to have been considered is that those were
spontaneous outbursts and the authorities may have been taken unaware but what
would be the ground realities when the law-enforcing agencies have sufficient
time to prepare for any apprehended contingency.
45. The application and order under Section 321 is a result of panic
reaction by overzealous persons without proper understanding of the problem
and consideration of the relevant materials though they may not have any
personal motive. It does not appear that anybody considered that if
democratically-elected governments give an impression to the citizens of this
country of being lawbreakers, would it not breed contempt for law; would it
not invite citizens to become a law onto themselves. It may lead to anarchy.
The Governments have to consider and balance the choice between maintenance of
law and order and anarchy. It does not appear that anyone considered this
aspect. It yielded to the pressure tactics of those who according to the
Government are out to terrorise the police force and to overawe the elected
Governments. It does not appear that any one considered that with their
action people may lose faith in the democratic process, when they see public
authority flouted and the helplessness of the Government. The aspect of
paralysing and discrediting the democratic authority had to be taken into
consideration. It is the executive function to decide in the public interest
to withdraw from prosecution as claimed, but it is also for the Government to
maintain its existence. The self-preservation is the most pervasive aspect of
sovereignty. To preserve its independence and territories is the highest duty
of every nation and to attain these ends nearly all other considerations are
to be subordinated. Of course, it is for the State to consider these aspects
and take a conscious decision. In the present case, without consideration of
these aspects the decision was taken to withdraw TADA charges. It is evident
from material now placed on record before this Court that Veerappan was acting
in consultation with secessionist organisations/groups which had the object of
liberation of Tamil from India. There is no serious challenge to this aspect.
None of the aforesaid aspects were considered by the Government or the Public
Prosecutors before having recourse to Section 321 Cr.P.C.”
The above observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case filed
by Abdul Kareem, father of a police Sub Inspector who was allegedly killed by
Veerappan and his men, opposed the Special Public Prosecutor’s application
under Section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking consent of the Designated Court to withdraw
the TADA charges levelled against some of the associates who are in judicial
custody and withdrawal of detention order and the Government also revoking the
order of detention of those detained under N.S.A and to facilitate their
release. The observation/conclusion in the above paragraphs also speak about
Veerappan and his associates.
34. In SECRETARY v. SAHNGOO RAM ARYA, reported in (2 002) 5 Supreme
Court Cases 521, the Honourable Supreme Court has pointed out that when High
Court can direct inquiry by CBI while exercising power under Article 226 of
the Constitution. Para 5 and 6 are relevant:
“5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 to
direct an inquiry by CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where
there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is
a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the
pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on
consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material
before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by CBI. This is a
requirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in the
case of Common Cause (1999) 6 SCC 667 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1196. This Court in
the said judgment at paragraph 174 of the Report has held thus: (SCC p.75 0,
para 174)
“174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate ‘any
other offence’ is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously,
direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima faicie,
found to have been committed or a person’ s involvement is prima facie
established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has
committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would
be contrary to the concept and philosophy of ‘LIFE’ and ‘LIBERTY’ guaranteed
to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction is in
complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of
‘LIFE’ has been explained in a manner which has infused ‘LIFE’ into the
letters of Article 21.”
6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life
under Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded
by the police or CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is
living as a law-abiding citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision to
direct an inquiry by CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court
after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such
material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI
or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of
routine or merely because a party makes some such allegations. In the instant
case, we see that the High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that
there is a prima facie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded on
the basis of “ifs” and “buts” and thought it appropriate that the inquiry
should be made by CBI. With respect, we think that this is not what is
required by the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Common cause
(1999) 6 SCC 667.”
The above decision of the Supreme Court makes it clear that unless materials
placed before this Court disclosed a prima facie case calling for an
investigation by the C.B.I or any other similar agency, the same cannot be
done as a matter of routine or merely on the basis of some allegations made by
party.
35. It is also relevant to note that in ALLIRAJ GOUNDER v. THE
INSPECTOF OF POLICE, reported in 2005 (3) CTC 673, First Bench of this Court
after referring to a decision in C.B.I. v. RAJESH GANDHI, 1997 Crl.L.J. 63,
has stated that an accused cannot have a say as to who should investigate the
offence he is charged with. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has
observed that the decision to investigate or decision on agency which should
investigate does not attract the principles of natural justice. In the light
of the decision of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench has concluded that
“in our opinion the same principle applies to complainants also, and they
cannot ordinarily have a say as to which agency should investigate an alleged
criminal offence.”
36. In the case on hand, we have already referred to the factual
details furnished in the form of counter affidavit by respondents 1 and 3.
Even the complaint/representation of the petitioner dated 8-11-2004 in view of
constitution of an enquiry by the Government, the same had been forwarded to
enquiring authority, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer. Further, we have
already found that the allegations that Veerappan and his associates were
captured three days prior to the incident and tortured and he was administered
anaesthetic material due to which he and his associates killed have not been
substantiated. On the other hand, the materials furnished by the respondent
show that there is no basis for the same including the doubts raised against
the competency of the post-mortem doctors regarding the cause of death.
Further, from all the relevant materials, including the post-mortem report
video gram taken at the time of postmortem, photos with negatives to the
Revenue Divisional Officer by the investigation officer in Dharmapuri Police
Station Crime No. 1221/2004, we are satisfied that no sufficient material was
put-forth to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is need for enquiry
by C.B.I.
37. It is also relevant to refer that the incident occurred on
18-10-2004, and that on the next day i.e., on 19-10-2004 the District
Collector in ROC No. 58187/04/C1, has ordered an enquiry under Section 150
(3) of Police Standing Order into the death of Veerappan and his associates.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Government, it is stated that based on
the said proceedings, the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional
Officer, Dharmapuri have issued notices to the general public intimating the
date of magisterial enquiry, as 1-11-2004 and 2-11-2004. It is also brought
to our notice that after notice to all the persons concerned, the Revenue
Divisional Officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report to the
Government through the District Collector on 31-03-2005. The report discloses
that during enquiry 196 witnesses have been examined. The petitioner, wife of
the deceased Veerappan also appeared and gave statement in the enquiry.
Expert reports from Biology, Serology, Ballistic, Viscera, Physical,
explosive, etc., have been obtained and considered by Revenue Divisional
Officer. Considering all the statements obtained from the witnesses and
reports, the Revenue Divisional Officer has concluded that it is an
intelligence operation which was evolved and in such an operation, the Special
Task Force personnel was left with no other option except to open fire in self
defence and in their attempt to apprehend or arrest the said dreaded criminals
Veerappan and three others. The report further shows that in the encounter
Veerappan, Chandregowda, Sethumani and Sethukuli Govindan were killed. The
Revenue Divisional Officer concluded that the action of the S.T.F. personnel
is justified and the Government have accepted the findings of the Revenue
Divisional Officer and issued orders.
38. In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the
materials do not disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by
the C.B.I., accordingly, the writ petition filed by Muthulakshmi is liable to
be dismissed.
39. In the initial order dated 4-2-2005, learned Single Judge has
directed the Inspector of Police to whom the complaint of the petitioner dated
8-11-2004 has been given to take the complaint on file and register the same
forthwith without any delay, however, on mentioning, by subsequent order dated
7-2-2005, directed the Inspector of Police to take it on file after the
completion of the enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, which
shall be completed within a period of one month. Aggrieved by the said order,
Home Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu and others filed Writ Appeal
No. 479 of 2005. Though counter-complaint is permissible and not prohibited
under Cr.P.C., as enunciated in Upkar Singh’s case (2005 Supreme Court cases
(cri) 211), inasmuch as the same had been forwarded to the enquiry officer
i.e., Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer and the same is
part of enquiry record/proceedings and taking note of the fact that the
complainant/ writ petitioner herself made a statement and enquired by the
enquiry officer, we are of the view that the direction of the learned Judge
dated 7-2-2005 is not warranted and in any event cannot be sustained.
40. Though the petitioner has prayed for several directions in the
form of writ miscellaneous petitions pending disposal of the main writ
petition, in the light of our conclusion holding that the petitioner has not
made out a case for enquiry by C.B.I., those petitions are liable to be
dismissed.
41. In the result, Writ Appeal No. 479 of 2005 is allowed. Writ
Petition No. 3009 of 2005 is dismissed; and connected W.P. M.Ps., are also
dismissed. No costs.
******
After pronouncement of judgment in the above matter, Mr. R.
Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, seeks leave to
Appeal to the Supreme Court. Inasmuch as we followed the principles laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any justification in the request
made by the learned counsel. Hence, the same is rejected.
Index:- Yes
Internet:- Yes
R.B.
To:-
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Department of Home,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police,
D.G.P.Office, Mylapore,
Chennai-4.
3. The Additional Director General of Police,
Special Task Force, Sathiyamangalam,
Erode District.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri District.
5. The Station House Officer,
Kolathur Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
6. The Joint Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Haddows Road, Chennai-6.