ORDER 1. The petitioner has come forward with a petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent police to alter and add Section 302 IPC in Crime No. 28 of 2013 on the file of the second respondent. 2. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased Anbalagan and he was attacked by the accused on 25.01.2013 and a case was registered by the second respondent police under Sections 342 ,323 , 324 and 506(ii) IPC after five days of the incident. The police also submitted a final report on 15.02.2013 and within a period of 20 days, the entire process has been completed and hence, no proper enquiry or investigation was done was the contention of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner submitted that the post-mortem was conducted only on 03.04.2013 and when the matter is pending before the police, they could have invoked Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and conducted proper investigation/enquiry. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was attacked with a log and aruval and he sustained injury and took treatment as in-patient in the Hospital and subsequently, discharged. Because of the head injury, the husband was not fully recovered and on 30th March 2013, due to the side effect of injury, he fell on the floor and injured again and admitted in the Hospital and died thereafter. The petitioner submitted that the case squarely falls under Section 302 IPC and instead of adding these charges to the charge sheet, the police has closed the entire matter invoking Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. This Court has adjourned the matter on several times asking the Investigating Officer to appear before this Court and also to produce the C.D. If the C.D for the injury due to the first attack and the subsequent injury are compared, it would come to light the nature of injury and it could be easily ascertained whether the subsequent incident had taken place on account of injury caused on 25.01.2013. 6. The second respondent filed a status report stating that the injury was simple as per the injury report. The petitioner was in the Hospital till 29.01.2013 and got discharged and the case reported to the Police Station on 30.01.2013 was registered against the offenders. 6. The second respondent filed a status report stating that the injury was simple as per the injury report. The petitioner was in the Hospital till 29.01.2013 and got discharged and the case reported to the Police Station on 30.01.2013 was registered against the offenders. He further submitted that the charge sheet was made on 15.02.2013 and despatched to the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Thanjavur and the case was taken on file on 16.09.2013 in C.C. No. 168 of 2013. During that period, the petitioner was normal like any normal citizen and thereafter, Anbalagan became ill and fell suddenly in the house and that Anbalagan’s injured left hand and leg became paralytic and he got admitted in Thanjavur Medical College Hospital as informed by Anbalagan himself at the Hospital. The said Anbalagan took treatment for 4 days and despite best treatment, he died on 03.04.2013. Subsequently, the case was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No. 115 of 2013 on the basis of the complaint given by one Kesavan, brother of the deceased. The report given by the Medical authorities would show that the reason for the death of Anbalagan is due to the complications of hemorrhage in the vital organ, namely brain. 7. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side), the Doctor has given opinion on 04.05.2013 that there is no relation with earlier injuries for the death of Anbalagan. According to the police, alteration into Section 302 IPC, as sought for by the petitioner is not maintainable and hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent. 9. It is an admitted case that there is attack on the deceased Anbalagan on 25.01.2013 and he was admitted and discharged. It is also not in dispute that the case has been registered on 30.01.2013 under various provisions of Indian Penal Code and the charge sheet was filed on 15.02.2013. The fact that the accused fell at his residence and he became paralytic and admitted into the Hospital and thereafter, died after four days and the case was registered under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The fact that the accused fell at his residence and he became paralytic and admitted into the Hospital and thereafter, died after four days and the case was registered under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, there is no reason as to why the police has not reopened the case after receipt of the post-mortem report dated 03.04.2013 and invoked Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 10. This Court has also directed the Investigating Officer to be present and produce the C.D to ascertain the truth and the same has not been done. The police should have investigated invoking under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when it is an admitted case that the accused sustained injury on both occasions on 25.01.2013 and again on 30.03.2013. It should be investigated whether the injury sustained during the second time has got any nexus with the injury that took place on 25.01.2013. A C.D would have helped the parties to come to conclusion if produced as directed by this Court. There is no reason as to why the police has not even attempted to add Section 304 IPC into the charges. 11. I find much force in the arguments of the petitioner and accordingly, the second respondent police is directed to investigate and add any one of the necessary Sections in the charge sheet, more particularly, Section 302 IPC or 304 IPC depending upon the circumstances and proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. 12. The Criminal Original Petition is ordered. Ordered accordingly