Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1896 (MAD)

Kanthammal v. Director General of Police

2013-06-04

T.RAJA

body2013
JUDGMENT 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. 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. Immediately on receiving such information, when the petitioner reached the scene of occurrence and found that the police were investigating the case, the people living around the house informed the petitioner that they saw the above said Gopal inside the house of Jayalakshmi at 2.30 a.m., midnight on 4.5.2004 making quarrels with her daughter-in-law and beating her. The petitioner was also further informed by all of them that they heard the screaming voice of her daughter-in-law when she was brutally attacked by the said Gopal. Even though the petitioner asked her eldest grand son Nirmal about the death of his mother and his brother and sister, he told the petitioner that the above said Gopal took him to the police station and obtained his signature in a paper after having a private talk with the police. Further, the whole village was also aware of the fact that only Gopal had murdered her daughter-in-law and two grandchildren. Further, the whole village was also aware of the fact that only Gopal had murdered her daughter-in-law and two grandchildren. Though a complaint was made on 11.5.2004 to the Inspector of Police, marking copy of the complaint to the District Collector, the District Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vaniyambadi and the third respondent police have not even conducted any proper investigation. Although a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C., was registered on 5.5.2004 on the complaint given by her grandson Nirmal and the original F.I.R., along with the complaint was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupattur on the same day, the third respondent police recorded a false statement stating that the victims had committed suicide. It was further pleaded that as per Sections 174, 175 and 176 of Criminal Procedure Code, when an officer in charge of a police station receives any information that a person has committed suicide, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquest and subsequently the officer shall proceed to the spot to make an investigation in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants and thereupon is duty bound to draw a report of the apparent cause of death and shall forthwith forward the report to the Executive Magistrate to hold inquest and thereafter the Executive Magistrate shall hold an enquiry into the cause of death, in addition to the investigation held by the police officer, after recording the evidence. But in the present case, the police officer has neither conducted any proper investigation as per Sections 174, 175 and 176(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, nor the Executive Magistrate has held any enquiry into the cause of death. Moreover, no person acquainted with the facts of the case was examined, besides the petitioner, her daughter Pushpalatha and her husband's brother and not even the village people were examined so far. In the meanwhile, without even conducting any enquiry, when a complaint was also filed by the villagers against the said Gopal, the third respondent has sent a report to the Executive Magistrate stating that the cause of death was suicide. When no respectable inhabitant of the neighbourhood was examined, the alleged investigation and the consequential report sent to the Executive Magistrate is an eye wash purposefully made to screen and shield the offender. When no respectable inhabitant of the neighbourhood was examined, the alleged investigation and the consequential report sent to the Executive Magistrate is an eye wash purposefully made to screen and shield the offender. A mere perusal of the photograph published in the daily newspaper as to the hanging of three persons viz., the mother and two children, whose feet touched the ground, clearly shows that the victims have not committed suicide. On the other hand, they were made to hang by someone. But this vital aspect was not considered after a detailed investigation or enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for a suitable direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the case in Crime No.369 of 2004 on the file of the third respondent and to submit a report before the concerned Court within a specified period of time. 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. 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 F.I.R., 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 postmortem 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 post-mortem 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. 4. 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. 4. During the pendency of the matter, the third respondent has also filed a status report dated 19.2.2013. As per the status report, it is seen that on receipt of the complaint given by Nirmal about the death of three persons, the Sub Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Vaniyambadi registered the said complaint in Crime No.369 of 2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and thereafter the Inspector of Police investigated the death of the above said three persons and after interrogating nine witnesses in addition to 15 panchayatdars, the bodies of the three victims viz., M/s Jayalakshmi, Balu and Sharmila were sent for post-mortem. Based on the final post-mortem report dated 8.2.2005 given by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Vaniyambadi, North Arcot District, the death of the above said persons were confirmed as suicide by hanging. Even though the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, Vaniyambadi has given his final report dated 8.2.2005 confirming the death of Jayalakshmi, Balu and Sharmila as suicide by hanging, the case could not be closed due to the pendency of the present writ petition. In the light of the aforementioned facts, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that proper investigation was carried out on the complaint given by Nirmal, S/o Jayalakshmi and the Inspector of Police also, after examining the nine witnesses and 15 panchayatdars, came to the conclusion that it was not murder. Further, the final post-mortem report dated 8.2.2005 given by the Medical Officer also indicated that the death of the three persons were only suicide by hanging. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only ground upon which the present writ petition came to be filed seeking for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation in Crime No.369 of 2004 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Vaniyambadi, the third respondent herein and to submit a final report before the concerned Court, shows that the third respondent has not conducted the investigation properly. Unfortunately, when Mrs.Jayalakshmi and her two children viz., Balu and Sharmila were found dead in their house on 5.5.2004, a case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the Sub Inspector of Police has given intimation to the Executive Magistrate by forwarding the F.I.R., and the Inspector of Police also proceeded to the spot and conducted inquest in the presence of the relatives of the deceased viz., Jayalakshmi's elder brother and her son and other persons of the village. After forwarding the F.I.R., the Inspector of Police also sent the requisition to the Executive Magistrate requesting to forward the same for chemical analysis. Accordingly, the Executive Magistrate also forwarded the requisition to the Forensic Science Laboratory to analyse chemically about the hyoid bones of the deceased preserved during the post-mortem. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of several persons and the report shows that the Investigating Officer has obtained the signatures of the witnesses after completion of the enquiry. Moreover, when the case was registered on the written report given by Nirmal, who is the son of the deceased Jayalakshmi, the said Nirmal also signed in the report and the further witnesses viz., Siva and Sivaraj had also attested the said report. Besides, the post-mortem report also reveals that the lingering marks are ante mortem and the forensic symptoms of the dead persons make it clear that the said deaths were due to suicidal hanging. On this basis, the police have sent the report to the Executive Magistrate stating that the cause of death is suicide. Therefore, it is not proper on the part of the petitioner to say that the Executive Magistrate has not exercised his jurisdiction and discharged his duties properly. Moreover, when the death of the above persons does not come under the purview of Section 174(3)(i) or (ii) of Criminal Procedure Code, the Executive Magistrate has not conducted any enquiry in addition to the enquiry and inquest conducted by the police. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.