P S SARAVANABHAVANANDAM Vs. S MURUGAIYYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are filed by the relations of the deceased to intervene in the petition for anticipatory bail in Cr. M.P. 8892 of 1985 on the file of this Court.

(2.) The facts are briefly as follows : One Packia Rani alias Usha wife of S. Murugaiyyan, the petitioner in Cr. M.P. 8892 of 1985, died on the morning of 18-10-1985 at the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Madras. Earlier on 17-10-1985, at about 4.15 p.m. the said Packia Rani alias Usha was admitted in the hospital for extensive burn injuries, by her husband Murugaiyyan. A dying declaration also is said to have been recorded from her. The petitioner in Cr. M.P. 9167 of 1985, P. R. Saravanabhavanandam, the brother of the deceased, who proceeded to the hospital on 18-10-1985 afternoon, finding that his sister is dead, gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was in the hospital, immediately saying that he suspected foul play on the part of Murugaiyan and that in view of the past conduct on his part, he suspected that his sister was murdered by Murugaiyan by pouring kerosene over her clothes and lighting her clothes. The petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 9167 of 1985 also pointed out that in the postmortem report No. 654/85 dt. 19-10-1985, a vertical contusion 4 cm X 1.5 cm on the scalp in the middle behind the parietal eminence was also described. The petitioner also states that the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 1983 provides for speedy and proper investigation and prosecution of cases where there is a reasonable suspicion of death caused due to harassment on account of dowry. The anticipatory bail petition of Murugaiyan will have to be considered in this context, and in order to place the proper materials before this Court in the anticipatory bail petition, the petitioner in Cr. M.P. 9167 of 1985 wants to intervene in the proceedings.

(3.) In Cr. M.P. 16 of 1986, the father of Murugaiyan is seeking the same relief to enable him to present the proper facts before the court, so that this court could come to the conclusion in the matter of granting anticipatory bail.