Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 621 (KER)

Vijayamma v. State of Kerala

2000-11-24

K.K.USHA, KURIAN JOSEPH

body2000
Judgment :- Kurian Joseph, J. This Writ Appeal arises from the judgment dated 20.2.1996 in O.P. No. 6932 of 1994. Appellant who is the petitioner in the Original Petition is the mother of one late Sri. Dileep Kumar who is alleged to have died in police custody on 7/8-10-1993. Petitioner complained that no proper investigation was conducted in Crime No. 173 of 1993 registered in that regard at Vattiyoorkavu Police Station. The investigation was conducted by the 4th respondent. The final report was filed stating that the said Dileep Kumar committed suicide by consuming poison. 2. After perusal of the entire case diary and after elaborately considering all relevant aspects, a learned Single Judge of this Court observed that "There is no doubt, Dileep Kumar committed suicide by taking poison" and hence declined to grant any relief for further investigation in the matter. Accordingly the Original Petition was dismissed. 3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Original Petition, petitioner filed the Writ Appeal. A Division Bench of this Court on 10.6.1999 passed the following order: "This case poses an alarming situation which cannot be lightly brushed aside. Therefore, we propose to take a deviation from the normal course and to take evidence to ascertain the question as to whether the deceased met with his tragic end in the manner as suggested by the' Police. The petitioner is directed to file a list of witnesses in support of her case within a week". Thereafter, by order dated 29.6.1999, the same Division Bench directed the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram to examine the witnesses, conduct a detailed enquiry and submit a report regarding the cause of death of the said Dileep Kumar. 4. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, after examining PWs.1 to 5 and RWs.1 to 9 and after perusal of all the connected case records and other evidence, summed up his detailed report dated 12.8.1999 as follows: "The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that sensing his arrest by the police party Dileep Kumar might have decided to end his life and thereby foil the plans of the police party, by consuming the deadly poison which he might have kept with him to tide over such eventualities." 5. On a scrutiny of the enquiry report and after hearing the parties, the same Division Bench on 17.8.1999 passed the following judgment: "On a scrutiny of the enquiry report submitted by Shri. V. Ramkumar, Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, we are satisfied that there is no material brought on record to substantiate the allegation that the deceased Dileep died as a result of the injuries inflicted on him while in police custody. The learned Single Judge was therefore right in dismissing the Original Petition filed by the mother of the deceased seeking a detailed enquiry into the circumstances leading to the cause of death of her son by a specialised agency and for compensation. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit which is accordingly dismissed". 6. It appears that the same Division Bench took up the case on 29.11.1999 for fresh consideration and passed the following order:- "Post tomorrow for suo mote re-hearing along with report of the Special Judge". Thereafter, on 30.11.1999, the Bench passed the following order: "G.P. is directed to produce the relevant register or registers including casualty-mortuary register kept by the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum as on the relevant date, viz. 7/8-10-93 containing the relevant entry to show that the deceased Dileep Kumar was brought dead by the Police." On 9.12.1999 the Bench again passed the following order: "Issue urgent notice to R4 to show cause why the case should not be reopened. The Superintendent, Medical College, Trivandrum is directed to produce the casualty/ mortuary register maintained by the Staff Nurse in charge of casualty on 7/8-10-93 before this Court. Post on 15.12.99." Thereafter, various other connected records were also directed to be produced including the original document relating to the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. 7. We have perused the entire records relating to the case. We are unable to see any new light warranting a suo motu reopening and rehearing of the appeal which was already dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 17.8.1999. We are also satisfied that the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has referred to all meticulous aspects of the case requiring investigation and thus only arrived at a logical conclusion which is fully supported by evidence. In such circumstances, we do not propose to keep this matter pending any more and hence we close and drop the rehearing of the Writ Appeal. 8. In such circumstances, we do not propose to keep this matter pending any more and hence we close and drop the rehearing of the Writ Appeal. 8. Since it is a case of suo mote re-hearing of a case which had already been disposed of more than four months prior to the suo mote reopening, we feel it necessary to make certain observations as to the procedure to be followed in such cases. Once judgment in a case has already been pronounced, it can be reopened only according to a procedure known to law, for re-hearing. In Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University (AIR 1988 SC 371), the Supreme Court has considered this aspect. Once a judgment is both pronounced and signed, alterations or additions are not possible except under the provisions of S.152 or S.114 of the Code of Civil Procedure or in very exceptional cases, under S.151 of the Code. At paragraph 9 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has dealt with the issue with the following observations: "Ordinarily judgment is not delivered till the hearing is complete by listening to submissions of counsel and perusal of records and a definite view is reached by the court in regard to the conclusion. Once that stage is reached and the court pronounces the judgment, the same should not be reopened unless there be some exceptional circumstance or a review is asked for and is granted. When the judgment is pronounced, parties present in the Court know the conclusion in the matter and often on the basis of such pronouncement, they proceed to conduct their affairs. If what is pronounced in court is not acted upon, certainly litigants would be prejudiced. Confidence of the litigants in the judicial process would be shaken. A judgment pronounced in open court should be acted upon unless there be some exceptional feature and if there be any such, the same should appear from the records of the case" 9. In that view of the matter, it is not proper for a court, when once judgment is both pronounced and signed, to suo motu reopen the case for rehearing, and that to, without assigning any reason discernible from the records. True, there may be exceptional situations where interests of justice would demand the court to rise above all technicalities and rehear a matter. True, there may be exceptional situations where interests of justice would demand the court to rise above all technicalities and rehear a matter. But certainly the reasons for such a deviation or an exception should be clearly discernible from the records of the case. With these observations the Writ Appeal is closed.