ABDUL LATHEEF Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the brother of the deceased - one Abdul Hakeem. Abdul Jaleel was employed abroad. He had come home on his leave. His dead body was found in a well near the house of one Mariyumma, whose husband is also employed abroad, on the night of 09/07/2005. The deceased was alleged to have gone to the house of Mariyumma and left that house at about 7 O' clock on that day to proceed to attend a marriage. After attending the marriage, he was not known of. His body was found lying in the well, near the house of Mariyumma on 11/07/2005. Crime was registered under the caption unnatural death. Investigation has not led to any definite clue of any foul play. The petitioner is aggrieved that proper investigation has not been conducted. Proper investigation into the crime has not allegedly been conducted by the fifth respondent. Inspite of the fact that no clue has been obtained, there is no serious attempt on the part of the police to conduct a proper investigation. All the efforts made by the petitioner to ensure that proper investigation is conducted has not borne any fruit. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this court with this writ petition. He prays that investigation may be directed to be conducted by any senior police official. Appropriate directions may be issued for expeditious and efficient conduct of the investigation, it is prayed. Notice was given to the respondent. The learned public prosecutor, on behalf of the respondent submits that proper investigation has been conducted by the fifth respondent and though the investigation has not been completed and final report submitted so far, the indications appear to suggest that the deceased must have attempted to return to the house of Mariyumma after the marriage and must have accidentally fallen into the well. There is a beaten track near the said well, it is pointed out. A torch light belonging to the deceased was also found near the well, it is pointed out.

(2.) I shall carefully avoid any expression of opinion on the acceptability of the provisional conclusion reached by the fifth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police. However, I have gone through the case diary. I find merit in the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it deserves to be directed that the investigation must be taken over and conducted by a more experienced and senior police official.

(3.) In the result, this writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the sixth respondent, Superintendent of Police, CBCID Kannur shall take over the investigation. He shall constitute a team headed by a senior police officer for conducting the further investigation and such team shall conduct the investigation under his personal supervision. The first report regarding the progress made in the investigation shall be filed before this court by the 6th respondent on or before 01/01/2007. Call this writ petition on 02/01/2007.