JOE RAJAN Vs. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THYCAUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, aged parents of the deceased husband of the 4th respondent, is before this Court seeking police protection. The records show that there are allegations and counter allegations made by the petitioners and the 4th respondent. The petitioners strongly suspect that the alleged illicit relationship of the 4th respondent with a cousin of the deceased, the 8th respondent, led to the death of the son of the petitioners. It is alleged that behind the death of the son of the petitioners there is an invisible hand of the 4th and 8th respondents. The 8th respondent had very close ties with the family of the deceased, as is noticed from both the writ petition as also the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent.

(2.) We first notice the statement filed by the Police Officer who is the Sub Inspector, attached to the police station having jurisdiction over the Peroorkada area where the petitioners are residing. Admittedly the death of the son of the petitioners occurred in a different area, which is under the jurisdiction of Mannanthala Police Station. It is averred in the statement of the Sub Inspector dated 07.06.2019 that Crime No.504/2019, has been registered in Mannanthala Police Station under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for unnatural death. It is also stated to be under investigation. However, the Sub Inspector of Police, Peroorkada Police Station goes on to say in the statement filed before this Court that "During the enquiry it is revealed that their son Sri.Joseph Rajan has committed suicide by hanging himself". It is unfortunate that a Sub Inspector of one another Police Station has made such a statement, when the crime registered against the unnatural death of a person is under investigation which is admitted by the said Sub Inspector. The Sub Inspector also goes on to rubbish the complaint of the petitioners that there has been threats levelled against them and unruly incidents in the dark of night, all attempted at the instigation of the party respondents and intended at threatening the petitioners from withdrawing from the investigation sought into the unnatural death of their son and also to carry out extortion of their properties.

(3.) We have seen the very detailed counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, in which contrary stands have been taken. The 4th respondent has made allegations against her in-laws and her husband and attempts to bring out a story that her husband committed suicide only because of the lack of financial help from his parents and the manner in which they treated him. The specific incident alleged of illicit relationship is also denied by the 4th respondent; but, however, it is also admitted on affidavit that the 4th respondent's family, consisting of herself, her husband and two children; had very close ties with two cousins of her husband, one Royce T.Jose and the 8th respondent. We cannot but notice the statement of the 4th respondent that her marriage was an arranged marriage while also making a specific allegation in the affidavit, that in fact the petitioners were inimical towards their deceased son because the marriage was not to their wish. We fail to understand how it could be an arranged marriage but at the same time against the wishes of the parents of the husband.