KANTHAMAL Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition was filed by Mrs. Kanthammal, the mother of late Siddharayan complaining that as per Sections 174, 175 and 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whenever the officer-in-charge of a police station receives information about the commission of suicide, instead of proceeding to the spot to make an investigation in the presence of two or more inhabitants and forward a report to the Executive Magistrate concerned to hold inquest, has committed serious violation in not ' following the above provisions in order to hold an enquiry by the Executive Magistrate concerned as per Section 176(4) of Criminal Procedure Code, as a result, she has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the case in Crime No.369 of 2004 on the file of the third respondent, the Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District to find out the cause of death of three persons, namely, Smt. Jayalakshmi and her two children by names Balu and Sharmila, the daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the petitioner, who are said to have been murdered by one Mr. Gopal. s/o Chinnasamy.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the mother of late Siddharayan, an ex-serviceman and who died in a rail accident in the year 1995 leaving behind his wife Mrs. Jayalakshmi, two minor sons viz., Nirmal aged 15 years and Balu aged 13 years and one daughter viz., Sharmila aged 11 years. It was further stated that when her son was alive and working in the Army, she was residing along with her daughter-in-law and grand children at No.2/186, Periya Kurumbar Street, Kothakottai Post, New Town, Vaniyambadi Taluk. But after the death of her son in the year 1995, her daugther-in-law developed illicit intimacy with one Mr. Gopal, s/o Chinnasamy who used to visit her son's house, even though the petitioner warned her daughter-in-law not to have any contact with the said Gopal, her advice went in vain. However, when her daughter-in-law received all the monetary benefits including provident fund, gratuity, family pension etc., from the Government on the death of her son, it was pleaded, the above said Gopal borrowed the said money from her daughter-in-law on the promise of returning the same. But subsequently, he refused to return the borrowed money, as a result, often wordy quarrel occurred between her and the said Gopal and at time when she interfered with such dispute, both of them asked the petitioner not to interfere with their personal matter. Subsequently, when the illegal relationship between them became an open secret in the village, the petitioner decided not to live with her daughter-in-law. Subsequently, she separately parted from them and started living with her daughter viz., Pushpalatha residing at No.57, Hayath Nagar, Tirupattur, Vellore District. Even after leaving her daughter-in-law's house, when she used to visit her daughter-in-law's house once in a week to see her grand children, the people living around the house were not having any contact with her daughter-in-law Jayalakshmi, since she had illicit intimacy with the said Gopal. However, all of a sudden, the petitioner was informed on 5.5.2004 that her daughter-in-law Jayalakshmi and her grandchildren viz., Balu and Sharmila were brutally murdered by the above said Gopal and they were hanged so as to appear that they had committed suicide by themselves.

(3.) The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the averments made . by the petitioner in the writ petition by taking a stand that since the death of the victims does not come under the purview of Section 174(3)(i) or (ii) of Criminal Procedure Code or in the custody of the police, the Executive Magistrate has not conducted any enquiry in addition to the enquiry and the inquest conducted by the police. It was further submitted that it was not correct to state that the police prima facie acted in a partisan manner to shield the real culprit Gopal and the police investigation never suggested a questionable investigation. Therefore, there was no need for issuing a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation. Further, it was pleaded that after the death of the petitioner's daughter-in-law and two grand children, proper investigation was made by the third respondent. After registering the case under Section 174 Cr.P.C, the police have not closed the case, since the case is under investigation. Moreover, the police cannot act upon a mere suspicion, however strong, as pleaded by the petitioner. Further, when a written complaint was given by Nirmal, who is the son of the deceased Jayalakshmi, nowhere the complainant Nirmal has made any suspicion against the said Gopal. Therefore, it is not correct to state that on 6.5.2004 the petitioner has given a complaint to the second respondent to take action against the said Gopal who murdered the said Jayalakshmi and her two children by hanging them to appear that they had committed suicide. When already the F.I.R., was registered and investigation was going on, the second complaint cannot be entertained. It was further submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that after registration of the case under Section 174 Cr.P.C, the Sub Inspector of Police has given intimation to the Executive Magistrate along with forwarding of F.I.R. The Inspector of Police also proceeded to the spot and conducted an inquest in the presence of the relatives of the deceased and other respectable persons of the village and since the FIR, has been forwarded to the Executive Magistrate, the Inspector of Police had also sent a requisition to forward the same for chemical analysis and accordingly the Executive Magistrate has again forwarded the said requisition to analyse chemically about the hyoid bones of the deceased preserved during the post-mortem by making a request to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, it is not correct to state that the Inspector of Police has not conducted any investigation. Finally, it was submitted that when there is no eye-witness to the occurrence, after recording the statements of 85 persons and the information regarding the cause of death also has been obtained from the doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead bodies and the doctor also has given a report stating that the cause of death could be due to hanging, the writ petition seeking re-investigation to find out the cause of death cannot be entertained. Further, when the death of the victims does not come under the purview of Section 174(3)(i) or (ii) or in the custody of the police, the Executive Magistrate has not conducted any enquiry in addition to the enquiry by the police. On this basis, it was pleaded that it is not correct to state that the police and the Executive Magistrate have not conducted any proper investigation.