BR DAVIS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defacto complainant/injured victim in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 326 r/w. 149 I.P.C. In the complaint/F.I. statement before the police, five persons are named specifically. Overt acts were also alleged. It is the grievance of the petitioner that a proper investigation is not conducted and hastily the first accused has been dropped from the array of accused. The first accused was identified as one of the miscreants in the F.I. statement. But even without further interrogating the complainant, on the very first day of investigation a decision has been taken that the first accused is not guilty and has been dropped from the array of parties.

(2.) Totally dissatisfied with the quality of investigation, this Court directed the Investigating Officer to appear in person and explain the course followed by him. It is conceded that though the first accused is named in the F.I. statement and in the wound certificate, he was dropped from the array of parties even without further interrogating the complainant on the short ground that some other eye witnesses did not specifically refer to him. Final report has already been filed. The short prayer of the petitioner now is that a further investigation may be ordered to be conducted by a competent superior police official.

(3.) I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the quality of investigation. But I take note of the submissions made by the Investigating Officer, who appeared before court personally as also the learned Prosecutor that it is only inexperience and no malafides is involved in the nature of the investigation conducted. I shall not embark on a more detailed consideration on that aspect. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner - and that course is not opposed by the learned Prosecutor - that a further investigation can be directed to be held in the matter under Section