JUDGMENT M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J. 1. The petitioner is the father of the deceased, namely, Kanthasenan and he is aggrieved by the closure report filed in Criminal No. 525 of 2012 registered by the first respondent with regard to the death of his son and came forward to file this Criminal Original Petition for transfer of the investigation to the third respondent, namely, CBI. 2. A perusal of the typed set of documents would disclose that the first respondent has registered a case in Criminal No. 525 of 2012 under Section 174 Cr. P.C. on 01.07.2012 and the contents of the F.I.R. would disclose that at about 06.00 a.m. on that day, the wife of the deceased, namely, Kothai – the second respondent herein, has lodged a complaint stating that the marriage between her and the deceased was solemnised about 10 years back and due to wedlock, two children were born and she is employed as a Part-Time Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Iluppaiyur and her husband is employed as Assistant Veterinary Doctor, Government Veterinary Hospital, Kariappatti. She would further state that on 30.06.2012 at about 11.45 p.m., her husband came to the house and told that since it is hot and humid inside the house, he wants to sleep in the open terrace and accordingly, he went there and she and her children slept in the down portion. At about 05.00 a.m., when she opened the door, her husband was found dead with head injuries. She would further state that he had fallen from the terrace portion while he was in a sleeping mood and she has further stated that she has no suspicious in respect of the death of her husband. 3. The first respondent has examined many witnesses and ultimately, concluded that the husband of the second respondent had fallen while he was under the influence of alcohol and consequently, died and therefore, no purpose will be achieved by prolonging the investigation and therefore, filed the report requesting the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate to accept the report and close the case as Action Dropped. 4. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would vehemently and forcibly contend that the marriage between the second respondent with the deceased was a love marriage and she was doing a business and in that process, she had developed intimacy with the Director of the business/Multi-Level Marketing and therefore, she murdered her husband and made it to appear as if he has fallen from the terrace on account of the influence of alcohol. 5. It is further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that admittedly, the body of the deceased was lying naked and taking into consideration the fact that he was employed as Assistant Veterinary Doctor, Government Veterinary Hospital, he would not have slept without clothe on him and though no statements have been recorded from him and his wife under Section 161(3) Cr. P.C., the first respondent has filed the final report as if both of them had given the statements under Section 161(3) Cr. P.C. 6. Drawing the attention of this Court to the statements of witnesses, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the statement of one Pragadeesh, the deceased was taken to a hospital for treatment and admittedly, no investigation has been done as to whether the deceased was earlier taken to the hospital or not. He would further add that the deceased had stopped consuming the alcohol 1 + prior to the date of occurrence and therefore, the theory projected by the prosecution that the deceased has fallen down from the terrace on account of the influence of alcohol and died, is only to aid the first respondent and the transfer of the case to the CBI would only reveal the truth. 7. Per contra, Mr. P. Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the testimonies of witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr. P.C., post-mortem certificate and also the statement of Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Aruppukkottai, who conducted autopsy and submitted that the statements of witnesses would lead to the only inference that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol on the fateful night and had fallen from the terrace and died and the post-mortem certificate would also indicate that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage and injuries to the vital organs, namely, brain and liver. 8. 8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent inviting further attention of this Court to the post-mortem certificate, would submit that even as per the post-mortem certificate, the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and the injuries sustained by him were on the brain, chest and liver. 9. It is further submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent that admittedly, the body after conducting the post-mortem was cremated and therefore, the re-post-mortem cannot be done and hence, ordering further investigation or fresh investigation may not serve any purpose and prayed for the dismissal of this petition. 10. Per contra, Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the third respondent would submit that the CBI is already entrusted with the investigations of very many sensitive cases and on account of lack of personnel as on today, it may not be in a position to undertake the investigation of this case and prayed for appropriate orders. 11. This Court paid it's anxious consideration and best attention to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the third respondent. 12. The first respondent after registration of the case had examined nearly 23 witnesses and collected the documents and ultimately, concluded the investigation that the deceased died on account of the accidental fall while he was under the influence of alcohol. 13. A perusal of the statements of witnesses including the petitioner herein would disclose that at the earliest point of time, immediately after the occurrence, the petitioner has given a statement that his son/deceased was addicted to alcohol and he used to consume alcohol daily and come late to home. He was also under the impression that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and at about 05.00 a.m., his neighbour knocked the door and informed that a body was found on the road and thereafter, he found that it was his son. The mother of the deceased has also given a statement and so also, the wife of the deceased. Further statements were also recorded from the above said witnesses and at that time only, the petitioner has developed some suspicion with regard to the demise of his son. 14. The mother of the deceased has also given a statement and so also, the wife of the deceased. Further statements were also recorded from the above said witnesses and at that time only, the petitioner has developed some suspicion with regard to the demise of his son. 14. Further, the second respondent would also state that since she was under the impression that if she stated that her husband died due to the fall from the terrace under the influence of alcohol, she may not get any terminal benefits, she has not stated about the fact that he was under the influence of alcohol, while her statement was recorded under Section 161(3) Cr. P.C., on 01.07.2012. 15. The statement under Section 161(3) Cr. P.C. of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, would also disclose that all injuries sustained by the deceased were on the rear side of his head and his ribs were also broken and skull was also broken and liver also got damaged. The post-mortem certificate would also indicate that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. 16. The statement of Donald Raveendran, Chief Scientific Assistant attached to Forensic Laboratory, Virudhunagar, would also indicate that he has conducted the tests on the clothe worn by the deceased and found that there is no material to conclude that a crime was committed. 17. The statement of Dr. Jeyakumar would also indicate that between 30.06.2012 and 01.07.2012, nobody took treatment. 18. The inquest report would also indicate that the Panchayatdars opined that the deceased had accidentally fallen down while he was under the influence of alcohol. The friends of the deceased were examined and they also confirmed the fact that he used to consume alcohol and so also, his neighbours. 19. Thus, all the witnesses examined during the investigation would indicate that the deceased was addicted to alcohol and on the fateful day, he was under the influence of alcohol and he felt stuffy and wanted to sleep in the open terrace and during the course of the night hours, he had fallen down under the influence of alcohol and consequently, died. 20. It is also very pertinent to point out at this juncture that after autopsy was conducted, the body was also cremated and therefore, re-post- mortem cannot be done. 21. 20. It is also very pertinent to point out at this juncture that after autopsy was conducted, the body was also cremated and therefore, re-post- mortem cannot be done. 21. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (14) Scale 25 to stress the point that the Honourable Supreme Court on similar facts, has transferred the investigation to the CBI. The facts of the said judgment would disclose that a girl student was said to have committed suicide and the concerned educational institution in order to safe his reputation, fudged the post-mortem certificate and later, it was found that it was not so and therefore, under such circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court has transferred the investigation to the CBI. 22. In the case on hand, the materials collected by the prosecution during the course of the investigation, prima facie would indicate that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the open terrace while he was under the influence of alcohol and the post-mortem certificate as well as the testimony of the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem, would also support the said version. 23. The learned Counsel for the petitioner made a feeble attempt by submitting that the second respondent on account of the illicit intimacy with the Director of the business/ Multi-Level Marketing, has murdered her husband and made it as if, he died of accidental fall. 24. In the considered opinion of this Court, no such specific allegation has been made and the materials placed before this Court did not indicate the same and it may be a farfetched imagination on the part of the petitioner herein. 25. This Court, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view that it is not a fit case for transfer of investigation to the CBI and therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his further or other remedy, if so advised, in accordance with law.