BABU THOMAS Vs. SECRTARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are accused 1 and 2 in C.P.No.153 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 323 and 404 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prayer in this petition is to quash Annexure-2, final report submitted by the Circle Inspector, Kozhencherry in Crime No.355 of 2005 of Aranmula Police Station and to direct further investigation to be conducted. Learned counsel contends that there is absolutely no material to implicate petitioners in the alleged incident, apart from alleging the motive for the first petitioner towards the deceased, no material witness has been questioned by the Investigating Officer and no material also has been collected to show involvement of petitioners in the alleged incident. It is also submitted that even the theory of last seen together is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is submitted that in the course of investigation by the Circle Inspector, learning that the investigation is directed against petitioners with malafide intention, the father of first petitioner submitted a representation to the Government which was got enquired by the Police and that the enquiry revealed that petitioners are not involved in the alleged incident. Accordingly the Additional Chief Secretary has sent a letter dated 24.06.2008 to the father of first petitioner stating that such enquiry revealed that petitioners are not involved in the alleged incident. It is prayed that in the circumstances a further investigation may be ordered.

(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor submitted that on the representation made by the father of first petitioner to the Government, the Crime Branch was directed to conduct an enquiry and before the Crime Branch, petitioners gave statements exonerating themselves and implicating the third accused alone in the incident. In that situation the District Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Pathanamthitta to look into the matter, that Officer conducted an enquiry and concurred with the findings of the Investigating Officer (that petitioners are also involved). The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has filed Annexure-2, final report before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta which is now pending committal.

(3.) IN the present case even Annexure-1, letter would show that the Government had directed the District Superintendent of Police to conduct a detailed investigation. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the District Superintendent of Police directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Pathanamthitta to conduct such enquiry and that Officer concurred with the finding of the Circle INspector, Kozhenchery. It is also to be seen that while Annexure-1, letter is dated 24.06.2008, Annexure-2, final report is dated 31.08.2009. IN these circumstances, based on Annexure-1, I do not think it necessary or proper to direct further investigation of the case.