Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3632 (MAD)

S. Kasthuri Sundararajan v. Chief Secretary

2017-11-07

M.S.RAMESH

body2017
JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramesh, J. The petitioner's husband namely Sundararajan died on 12.06.2017. Initially, the petitioner and her family members were under the impression that the cause of her husband's death was natural. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner was appraised of certain facts by which she felt that the death of her husband could have been caused due to the threat and harassment made by two persons namely Selvalakshmi and Dhanalakshmi and hence she gave a complaint to the 5th respondent on 13.07.2017. Since no action was initiated by the respondent police, the petitioner had filed C.M.P.No.5861 of 2017, under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, 1973and by an order dated 15.09.2017, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, directed the respondent police to register the complaint. Consequently, F.I.R. in Crime No.589 of 2017 came to be registered for the offences under Sections 306, 384, 448 & 506 (1) of I.P.C. Though, the petitioner had brought to the notice of the respondent police about the involvement of the persons namely Selvalakshmi and Dhanalakshi and submitted that the death was only due to the threat and harassment made by these two persons, no much progress was happening in the said case. 3. Incidentally, the petitioner also found an empty bottle of pesticide and a tumbler under the bed of the deceased, which she claims to have been handed over to the respondent police. According to the petitioner, the death could have been caused due to the consuming of poison. 4. However, since at the time of death, the petitioner herself and her family members were under the impression that it was natural death, there was no necessity to conduct a post-mortem on the body of her husband and subsequently, the body was buried on the burial ground in Avinashi. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced an audio CD and typed set of papers, containing the conversations in the CD, which, clearly reveals that there was a threat caused to the deceased by the two persons mentioned above. 5. In this background, unless the cause of death is ascertained, a proper investigation cannot be conducted. It is reiterated that since the family members did not found any foul play at the time of death, no post-mortem was conducted. 6. 5. In this background, unless the cause of death is ascertained, a proper investigation cannot be conducted. It is reiterated that since the family members did not found any foul play at the time of death, no post-mortem was conducted. 6. In view of the subsequent developments of finding of telephone conversations and empty pesticide bottle under the bed of the deceased, the cause of death now becomes relevant. Under instructions from this Court, an opinion was sought for from the Professor and Head of the Department, Department of Forensic Medicine, Coimbatore Medical College, Coimbatore-14, who had opined, through his letter dated 29.10.2017, that unless the exhumation of body is done, the cause of death cannot be ascertained with the case documents and other medical records. 7. I am of the view that a post-mortem is necessarily required to ascertain the cause of death. Hence, there shall be a direction to exhume the body of the petitioner's husband late Sundararajan on or before 15.11.2017 and the said exhumation shall be done under the supervision of the Professor and Head of the Department, Department of Forensic Medicine, Coimbatore Medical College, Coimbatore-14 and necessary exhumation report shall also be filed before this Court. The process of exhumation shall be done in the presence of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur. The respondent shall also ensure that after the exhumation, a decent burial is given to the body of the petitioner's husband namely late Sundararajan.