Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 641 (MAD)

M. Murugian v. Superintendent of Police, Dindigul

2015-02-03

C.T.SELVAM

body2015
Common Order 1. The petitioner, who is the father of a girl who died on 02.06.2014, seeks transfer of the case registered in Crime No.185 of 2014 on the file of the third respondent to the fourth respondent, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Dindigul. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 3. The petitioner's contention is that his daughter had been given in marriage to one Karthick in the year 2009. The couple had two children. The husband regularly was drunk and picked up quarrels, such occurrence being more frequent during the year past. The petitioner received a call on 01.06.2014 at 11.30 p.m., informing that his daughter had consumed poison and had been admitted in hospital. On reaching there, he was informed that she was in I.C.U. In the early hours on 02.06.2014, hid daughter had been declared dead. It is alleged that even one hour before the call at 11.30 p.m., his daughter had called and spoken to him normally and informed of her husband's actions under the influence of alcohol and of his asking her to die, so that he could marry another lady, from whom he could receive dowry and lead a lavish life. It is further alleged that his daughter was buried on 02.06.2014 in a hurried manner even without conduct of postmortem. It is alleged that upon his noticing injuries on the left side neck, the abdomen and other parts of the deceased, the petitioner was threatened, became unconscious and was taken away from the place of burial. Though the petitioner had preferred a complaint to the third respondent, no receipt was issued. On the other hand, his signature was obtained on blank papers. The petitioner preferred a complaint to the first respondent, the Superintendent of Police on 04.06.2014. Stating that the third respondent is not registering a case and is reluctant to conduct postmortem. It is further learnt that after a quarrel on 01.06.2014, the petitioner's daughter had been at the bus stop to board a bus when some persons had witnessed her husband dragging her by her 'dhupata' up a stair case. She thus sustained multiple injuries resulting in her death. It is further learnt that after a quarrel on 01.06.2014, the petitioner's daughter had been at the bus stop to board a bus when some persons had witnessed her husband dragging her by her 'dhupata' up a stair case. She thus sustained multiple injuries resulting in her death. It is submitted that upon the petitioner moving Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10345 of 2014 seeking registration of a case and conduct of postmortem, the third respondent, having knowledge thereof, had registered a case in Crime No.185 of 2014 on 08.06.2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. It is alleged that respondents 2 and 3 had not acted fairly and had failed to alter the case to one under Section 302 I.P.C., despite sufficient material and despite this Court having dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail moved by the accused. Alleging thus, this petition is filed for transfer of investigation. 4. In Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15991 of 2014, the petitioners seeks exhumation of the body for a second postmortem in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai. 5. The status report filed by the respondent informs that on the complaint of the petitioner, a case in Crime No.185 of 2004 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. on 08.06.2014. The respondent police had visited the occurrence place and prepared a rough sketch and observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses and also examined several persons. One Chinnaraju, who is the family friend of the deceased and her husband, had been examined on 07.11.2014. He had informed that the deceased contacted him over mobile phone on 01.06.2014 at about 10.30 p.m., cried and asked him to take care of her husband and her children. Thereafter, the said Chinnaraju had informed the parents of the husband Karthick, who had rushed to the residence of the deceased. The body of the deceased has been exhumed and in the presence of the Thasildar, sent for postmortem as the deceased had died within 7 years of marriage. Owing to decomposition of the body, the cause of death could not be ascertained through postmortem. The chemical report did not reveal the intake of any poison. The doctor, who treated the deceased had stated that there were no external injuries and the petitioner's averments of injuries on the left side of the neck, abdomen and other parts of the body was not acceptable. The chemical report did not reveal the intake of any poison. The doctor, who treated the deceased had stated that there were no external injuries and the petitioner's averments of injuries on the left side of the neck, abdomen and other parts of the body was not acceptable. The inquest report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 07.11.2014 states that there is no dowry harassment. On the basis of witness statements and the investigation thus far, the respondent police have altered the case to 306 I.P.C. and are continuing the investigation. 6. I have considered the rival submissions, called for the records in the case and perused the same. 7. The second respondent is now in-charge of the investigation. The accident register of the deceased shows that the doctor had noticed some swelling on her neck. However, it was also noticed that there were no nail marks. It also recorded that the deceased was gasping and salivating excessively. Information of the deceased suffering from seizure disorder (last episode two years back) and being on medication has also been recorded. Not too much can be read into the accident register raising questions on whether the case could be one of hanging or strangulation. On examination, the Hyoid bone was found to be intact and owning to decomposition of body the physical features could not be noted during the postmortem. The accident register has informed that there were no external injuries. In the circumstances, we find no reason to suspect anything untoward in the investigation. Again, no useful purpose would be served by directing a further postmortem, when even at the first instance the decomposition of the body did not allow the noting of the physical features. 8. In view of the above, both the Criminal Original Petitions shall stand dismissed.