A. GANESAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Crl.O.P. has arisen in this way: The petitioner Ganesan is a merchant, running a provision shop in Tiruvannamalai. His son Satish Kumar, aged about 19 years, was studying in second year B.Sc. Computer Science in the Evening Course at Sacred Hearts College, Tirupatur. He was staying in a cottage known as Naidu Cottage situated at 90-B, Shivraj Pattai Street, Tirupattur., The Cottage was owned by one Krishnamurthy. One Karthik was the occupant of the adjacent room to Satish Kumar's room. Satish Kumar Used to make week end visits to his house at Tiruvannamalai; he used to come home on Friday evening and will return back to the College on Mondy morning. 15.10.1999 happened to be a Friday, but on that day Satish Kumar did not come home. His neighbour Karthik telephoned to the petitioner on 15.10.1999 in the night hours and enquired whether Satish Kumar had returned home. Again During the night of 16.10.1999, Karthik rang up to find out if Satish Kumar had returned home. But the petitioner informed him that Satish Kumar, had not come home. The petitioner tried to contact the cottage owner, but he could not get any reply about the availability of his son in the cottage and therefore, he went to Tirupattur, on 17.10.1999, with the available duplicate key, the petitioner opened Satish Kumar's room and found that the things kept by Satish Kumar were disarranged. He also found drops of blood in three places on the floor. He went to the third respondent and preferred a complaint detailing the facts. The third respondent registered a "Man missing" case in Crime No. 449 of 1999 on 17.10.1999.

(2.) One Govindaraj, own some lands in Survey No. 3/4, B3 Tirupattur. There is a well in the land. On 16.10.1999 at about 8.00 a.m. when Govindaraj peeped into his agricultural well, he found a dead body floating. He immediately informed about the same to the Village Administrative Officer, Syed Kareem. Syed Kareem went to the spot and he found a dead body floating. The body was removed, and it was found that the soft tissues of the body was eaten away by fishes. Both the legs were found tied with rope. There was a rope around the neck also. Regarding this, Syed Kareem preferred a complaint to the third respondent who registered a case in Crime No. 449 of 1999 under Sec. 179 Crimial P.C. i.e. as suspicious murder.

(3.) On 17.10.1999, when the petitioner approached the third respondent to prefer a complaint, he was shown certain cuttings from news papers which contained photographs of dead body with a News that a Dead Body was found in the well of Govindaraj. The third respondent took him to the hospital where he was shown the severed head kept for the purpose of conducting skull super imposition test. He could identify that it was the head of Satish Kumar. He wanted exhumation of the trunk for identification. Exhumation was done. He found that the trunk carried a scar mark which Satish Kumar had sustained, due to a fire accident. He verified the clothes and he found that they were the clothes of his son. He identified that the deceased was his son and insisted further investigation. The third respondent proceeded with further investigation. He obtained the visra report which was not helpful. The autopsy revealed that water had entered into the lungs of the dead body, indicating that the person died due to drowning. Super-imposition test was done and it was found that the deceased and the missing one is the same person, i.e., Satish Kumar. The investigation revealed that the deceased was having arrears in the examinations in two subjects viz., Fortran and Applied Mathematics. He was in a depressed mood. The Investigating Officer also found out that Satish Kumar did not know swimming. According to the investigation Officer, Satish Kumar had committed suicide by jumping into the well.