V. JAYANTHI Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the mother of one Mr. Tamil Mani. On 17.07.1998, Mr. Tamil Mani wanted to go for cinema. But, the petitioner and her husband refused permission. Therefore, at about 8.30 pm, on the same day, he left the house and went to her grand mother's house for sleeping. Next day morning, he did not return to his house. When his whereabouts was enquired, it came to light that on previous night, Mr. Tamil Mani had not gone to the house of his grand mother at all. The petitioner enquired about his whereabouts with his friends and others. But, she had no clue at all. Five or six days thereafter, a letter was received as though it was written by Mr. Tamil Mani. In that letter, it was mentioned that Mr. Tamil Mani had married a girl out of love and along with her, he left elsewhere. In that letter, there was a request not to search for him. Therefore, the petitioner and her family members were under the impression that Mr. Tamil Mani was living elsewhere. While so, on 28.11.2003, one Mr. Balamurugan and Mr. Jayamurthy came to the petitioner's house and told her that Mr. Tamil Mani was murdered by his neighbours by name M/s. Shivakumar, Soundararajan and Melam Sundar, four years ago, they have buried the body of the deceased. They told the petitioner that this was informed to them by Mr. Shivakumar. Immediately, the petitioner rushed to the police with a complaint on which, the present case in Crime No. 267 of 2008 was registered for offence under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 I.P.C.

(2.) DURING the course of investigation, the accused were arrested and on their information, the dead body of the petitioner's son was exhumed from the nearby burial ground, as identified by the accused. Due to lapse of time, what was recovered was only skeleton. There were as many as 22 bones recovered in the presence of the witnesses. The Doctor gave prima facie opinion that the bones were those of a male. Thereafter, the bones were recovered and kept in a sealed cover and the same was forwarded to a jurisdictional Magistrate. Then, a request was made by the police for forwarding the bones for DNA examination. Accordingly, the Forensic Lab conducted DNA examination and opined that the bones were those of a female and not of a male. Based on the same, the Investigating Officer, laid a negative report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Puducherry.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and I have also perused the records carefully.