Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 709 (KER)

Maneesha M. Chathely v. State of Kerala

2017-04-10

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : B. Sudheendra Kumar, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims to be a social worker. She is aggrieved by the action taken by the Investigation agency, which conducted the investigation in the matter of abduction and sexual abuse committed on a popular film artist in the night of 17.2.2017 in a vehicle on the National Highway between Ankamaly and Kalamassery. 2. Heard. 3. The learned senior public prosecutor, Shri. Suman Chakravarthy has submitted that the investigation has been almost complete and the final report is about to be filed shortly. It has been further submitted by the learned senior Public Prosecutor that Crime No.297 of 2017 was registered in Nedumbassery police station in connection with the above incident and all the accused persons have been already arrested and questioned by the police. The investigation was conducted under the direct supervision of the Additional Director General of Police (South Zone). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no effective investigation was conducted in this case and the police had accepted the version of the accused as gospel truth without conducting any proper investigation. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the statement given by the accused persons, who were arrested first, was leaked out to the public by the police within few minutes of giving the statement, which had helped the other accused to give similar statement to the police and under the said circumstances, the investigation could not be effectively conducted. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the 2nd respondent to supervise the investigation in the above said crime. The petitioner also prayed for an order directing the respondents to consider and dispose of Exts.P1 and P2 forthwith. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior public prosecutor, I am of the view that if the police had made public the statement given by the accused persons, who were arrested first, before the arrest of the other accused, there could be chance for the other accused adopting the statement given by the accused, who were arrested first, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the police did not disclose any such statement to the public. However, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the police did not disclose any such statement to the public. No material has been also produced before this court to indicate that any such statement given by any of the accused persons was made public by the police. In the said circumstances, I am not expressing any observation with regard to the said allegation at present. So, the said allegation is left open to challenge in the appropriate proceedings. 6. However, I make it clear that it is not a healthy practise for the investigating agency to disclose to the public regarding the statement given by the accused in the course of investigation, particularly when the other accused persons are yet to be arrested, because if the statement of the earlier arrested accused is made public before the arrest of the other accused in a case like the present case, where earnest and thorough investigation is necessary to find out the truth, the accused, who is yet to be arrested, would naturally get opportunity to come across the statement given by the earlier arrested accused and also the trend of investigation, which in turn would naturally result in giving statement by the other accused persons in accordance with the situation. In such an event, the investigating agency will not be able to effectively question the accused and investigate the case. In a case where there is no occular witness, the questioning the accused persons together and also separately in a skilled and scientific manner, is indispensable to have an effective investigation. In such cases, it is necessary to keep the materials received from the accused or from other sources secret at least at the initial stage of investigation, to carry out an unbiased and effective investigation. Therefore, unfolding the materials collected even to a very limited extent in such cases will be counter - productive. So I have no hesitation to hold that in order to have an effective investigation in a case, it is necessary to keep the materials received by the police in secret until and unless the investigation is advanced much, to avoid any sort of misguiding or tampering in the matter of investigation. So I have no hesitation to hold that in order to have an effective investigation in a case, it is necessary to keep the materials received by the police in secret until and unless the investigation is advanced much, to avoid any sort of misguiding or tampering in the matter of investigation. In view of the above reasons, the 2nd respondent is directed to ensure that there should not be any such disclosure of materials collected at the initial stage of investigation by the Investigating Officers, by issuing appropriate direction to all the Police officers in the State. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any specific instance where there was fault in the matter of investigation in this case. For the said reason and also taking into consideration of the submission of the learned senior Public Prosecutor that the investigation is being conducted under the direct supervision of the Additional Director General of Police, I am not inclined to issue any direction to the 2nd respondent, as prayed for in this writ petition at this stage. 8. As regards Exts.P1 and P2, the averments are almost general in nature and the prayers are also not specific. In the said circumstances, this court will not be justified in granting any relief in respect of Exts.P1 and P2. However, the respondents will go through the allegations and averments in Exts.P1 and P2 and take decision, if any, in accordance with law, if found necessary. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in challenging the investigation in accordance with law, by producing sufficient materials.