MITA KAMILA Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition relates to an investigation conducted by the police in respect of a deceased person. From time to time, various orders were passed by the Writ Court. Reports were filed by the police authorities. The reports disclose that, the death was caused by drowning ante-mortem in nature.

(2.) The petitioner is not satisfied with the conduct of the investigation so far. The petitioner suspects that, the death was caused by murder. The petitioner seeks that, the investigation should be handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.) for a better investigation. In support of the contention that, the Investigating Authority did not explore all the angles of the death, the petitioner contends that, the body was found beside a railway track when the death was caused by drowning. According to the petitioner, there is no explanation as to why such dead body should be found at that place. The petitioner also contends about the mobile phone of the deceased and a phone call being received from such mobile phone after the time of death noted in the post mortem report. These, according to the petitioner, are indications that, the investigation has not been carried out appropriately.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate for the State submits that, every possible angle for the cause of death has been explored. Expert medical opinions have been obtained. In fact, two medical opinions were obtained. Both the opinions are concurrent and say that, the death was caused by accidental drowning. The viscera report is still awaited. He submits that, the water body is next to the railway track. People have come forwarded and have given statements stating that, the body was recovered from the water body and been brought near about the railway track. The user of the mobile phone has also been explained by the person who had made the call from the mobile belonging to the deceased. Initially, the mobile phone was wet. After the water had drained out from the mobile it had started working and one of the persons who had the possession of the mobile phone had made the call from such mobile phone. According to him, every aspect of the matter was looked into. There is no necessity of replacement of an Investigating Authority.