G NEELA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner G. Neela has sought for a direction to the first respondent herein, namely the Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram to appoint any competent person to investigate the case in Crime No.329/2004 on the file of the second respondent and to file a charge sheet as early as possible. THE said case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. for the death of Selvam, the son of the petitioner herein alleging that she suspected that her son?s death could have been caused by one Arumugam, whose daughter by name Prema was in love with Selvam. Contending that the investigation over the death of the deceased Selvam was not properly done by the second respondent, the petitioner has made the above said prayer by filing the present petition invoking the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THIS court heard the submissions made by Mr. P. Vijendran learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr. I. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents. THIS court paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

(3.) THIS court directed to production of the CD file and perused the same. Apart from the postmortem certificate and the final opinion of the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy based on the report of the Forensic Lab that the stomach and intestine of the deceased and their contents contained organo phosphorous compound, the other materials available in the CD file are only the statements of the petitioner and one Pachiappa Mudaliar, Sekar and Neela. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Pachiappa Mudaliar is a persons residing in the opposite house of the girl?s father Arumugam. Furthermore, the final opinion of the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Chengalpattu Medical College, Chengalpattu is to the effect that the deceased would appear to have died of the effects of organo phosphorous compound poisoning. Without probing the matter further in a proper manner, to find out whether it could be a suicide by poisoning or a homicide and if it is a suicide, whether there was any abetment, the second respondent seems to have simply dropped the matter by reciting the opinion of the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Chengalpattu Medical College, Chengalpattu. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suspected persons were not at all examined by the second respondent and no attempt was made by the second respondent to examine them, cannot be brushed aside an untenable. In fact, the petitioner has also named certain persons to be the persons suspected to have caused the death of the deceased and such persons have not been examined. It seems no person seems to have been examined by the second respondent during his investigation of the case regarding the alleged elopement and registration of the case against the deceased on the file of the second respondent on the previous occasion. In fact the said aspect had not been adverted to and the investigation had not been directed on the said lines.