THANKAPPAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the father of deceased Gopi. Admittedly he died while in police custody on 6.10.1988. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to investigate his death through the Central Bureau of Investigation and also for a direction seeking a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner and his wife, parents of Gopi who died while in police custody.

(2.) The petitioner submits that his son was a member of the Democratic Youth Federation of India. He had due to some difference opinion dissociated from that organisation. He was also a good Kabadi player and his remarkable performance in the game had resulted in some unhappy relationship between him and some police personnel. On 4.10.1988, three police constables attached to the Sherthallai Circle Inspector's Office came to the petitioner's house in search of his son Gopi. They told the petitioner that Gopi was wanted by the Circle Inspector to be questioned in connection with some stolen articles. On the next morning, the petitioner and Gopi with their neighbour Madhavan went to the Circle Inspector's Office. Gopi had no knowledge about the theft nor had he received any stollen articles. Gopi was detained in the police station and the petitioner and Madhavan were sent back. They were told that Gopi would be released soon. Gopi did not return home. The next day, he went to the Police Station with some food for Gopi. But he was not allowed to meet Gopi. He was told that Gopi would be released after producing him in a Magistrate Court. But he was never produced in the Magistrate Court, though he had engaged lawyers to get his son Gopi released through Court. While so, the petitioner got a telegram, Ext. P1, asking him to collect the dead body of his son which was kept in the mortuary of the Alleppey Medical College Hospital. This was on 7.10.1988. On inquiry, he was told that Gopi had committed suicide by thrusting a piece of broken tube light into his abdominal part. The case was investigated by Crime Branch. Dissatisfied with the investigation the petitioner and another person named Mobi, who was also detained in police station at the time when Gopi was detained, filed O.P. No. 9388/1989 seeking direction for investigation of the case through CBI. This Court in Ext. P2 Judgment issued certain directions to the Director General of Police to enquire into the matter and ascertain

(3.) In terms of this the Director General of Police was bound to conduct an enquiry. The petitioner also should have been given a notice. But the petitioner did not get any notice. He was issued with Ext. P3 stating that a report had been sent to this court pursuant to the direction in Ext. P2. Thereupon, the petitioner applied for a copy of the report before this Court. It was endorsed on the copy application as seen from Ext. P4 that "Report not received in the seat (P). Hence, C. A. may be rejected". Thus, when the petitioner was informed that report had been sent to this Court, actually no report had been filed. It was in the above circumstances the petitioner again approached this Court with this Writ Petition seeking investigation through CBI and also seeking compensation.