SARAMMA PONNACHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's husband, Ponnachan aged about 37 years was found hanging on a rubber tree in the estate of Chandavila John on 18.09.2000 at about 7.30 a.m. Matter was intimated to the Kottarakkara Police who registered Ext.P1, FIR (Crime No.705 of 2000) under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The body was subjected to postmortem examination (Ext.P2 is the postmortem certificate). The Associate Professor who conducted that examination opined that postmortem findings are consistant with death due to hanging. Investigation was taken up by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara. According to the petitioner, her husband was brutally attacked by a few persons on the previous day of incident and details of those persons were given to the Investigating Officer (Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara) but, nothing worthwhile happened. Since investigation was not being conducted in the proper manner, according to the petitioner without even questioning the witnesses to the incident, she made Exts.P11, P14 and P15, representations to the various authorities requesting for a proper investigation of the case. Unable to get any positive response, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.23753 of 2008 and this Court by Ext.P17, judgment dated 10.09.2009 observed that inspite of the case being investigated for so many years there appeared to be no progress and investigation was at the same point where it started. This Court thought that in the interest of justice investigation is to be conducted by a senior officer and accordingly it was directed that respondent No.1 shall constitute a special team for investigation of the case headed by an efficient Deputy Superintendent of Police. Respondent No.1, the State thought that the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punalur is an efficient officer who would be able to make a break through so far as the incident is concerned and accordingly entrusted investigation to him. He continued the investigation. Still, things remained as it was before, according to the petitioner. Thereon petitioner has approached this Court again with this petition requesting to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, "the CBI"). Learned counsel for petitioner has referred me to the relevant records and the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, the present Deputy Superintendent of Police (who took charge only in 08/2010. According to the learned counsel, investigation cannot proceed in this line and in the nature of the investigation conducted by the State Police so far, it is only appropriate that investigation is handed over to the CBI. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after this Court passed Ext.P17, judgment a special team headed by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punalur was constituted to investigate the case and that respondent No.4 has stated in detail the investigation conducted so far.

(2.) I have taken through Ext.P16, photographs of the deceased seen in a hanging position on a ligature on a rubber tree. It is seen that his legs have firmly touched the ground and the knees are bent. The Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination has stated that postmortem findings are consistant with death due to hanging. I am not expressing any opinion as to whether the death was a suicide or homicide merely based on the photographs. It is seen from the documents produced by the petitioner that several representations were made to various authorities requesting proper investigation of the case. It is the consistant version of petitioner that her husband was assaulted by a few persons whose names were disclosed to the previous Investigating Officers and they were also informed about the witnesses to the said incident. Ext.P20 is a letter addressed by the petitioner to respondent No.4 on 22.11.2010 stating that one of the persons named by petitioner as assailant were abroad after the incident, he returned and as on the date of Ext.P20, letter he was available at Pooyyappally and is about to go abroad again after disposing of some of his properties and hence it is necessary that the said person is questioned to unravel the truth behind the incident. In the affidavit in support of I.A.No.3271 of 2011 it is stated in paragraph 3 that the said person had been to the office of Sub Registrar, Kalayapuram on 01.12.2010, stayed in his wife's house at Pooyyappally and on that day petitioner informed respondent No.4 four times about the presence of the said person at the said place but, no action was taken.

(3.) I do not want to add further. But, the investigation cannot proceed in this line. If it is a case of murder, persons involved are to be brought to book. It is only appropriate that the investigation is conducted by more experienced officer.