Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 474 (KER)

Balakrishnan Son Of Raman Nair v. State Of Kerala

2025-03-05

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.06.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 443 of 2021, whereby, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of investigation of Crime No. 52/11CBKK to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 2. The appellant is the father of the late Nisha, who allegedly committed suicide on 22.02.2011. She was found hanging from the window of a bedroom on the first floor of her matrimonial home. On the same day, one Velayudhan, the uncle of the deceased, lodged a First Information Statement, leading to the registration of Crime No.113/2011 at Feroke Police Station, inter alia under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. An inquest was conducted, following which the body of the deceased was cremated. 3. According to the petitioner, on perusing the postmortem certificate, he found that the actual cause of death was hanging. He contends that the family members of his son-in-law had initially informed him as well as the first informant different reasons for the death of his daughter. He was initially told that his daughter had fallen down in the bathroom and it was also stated that she died of a heart attack. Consequently, he lodged a complaint alleging foul play in the death of his daughter. In the said complaint, he also expressed strong dissatisfaction with the manner in which the police investigation had been conducted and highlighted the various reasons which persuaded him to entertain the suspicion. His representation was considered favourably, and the investigation was handed over to the CBCID, HHW-III, Wayanad Sub Unit, which was subsequently taken over by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating agency after investigation concluded that the death of the petitioner’s daughter was a case of suicide by hanging. A final report to this effect was submitted before the jurisdictional court on 10.12.2014. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 24551 of 2016, wherein he contended that the police had not conducted a proper investigation into the death of his daughter. His primary prayer was for the investigation to be entrusted to a more competent agency, namely, the Central Bureau of Investigation. 5. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after carefully evaluating the contentions, observed that the incorrect information allegedly provided by the son-in-law’s family members created an element of suspicion. His primary prayer was for the investigation to be entrusted to a more competent agency, namely, the Central Bureau of Investigation. 5. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after carefully evaluating the contentions, observed that the incorrect information allegedly provided by the son-in-law’s family members created an element of suspicion. The Court opined that critical aspects—such as what exactly transpired immediately before Nisha's death and the circumstances leading to her suicide—had not been adequately addressed by the investigating agency. Taking note of these aspects, the writ petition was allowed, and directions were issued to the respondent authorities to constitute a team of officers with proven investigative skills, led by an officer, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police from the Crime Branch, to reinvestigate the matter. 6. In compliance with the directions, a Special Investigation team was formed, which took over the case, conducted a fresh investigation, and reaffirmed the earlier conclusion that the death of the appellant’s daughter was a case of suicide. However, the appellant remained firm in his belief that his daughter's death was not a suicide but a clear case of murder. Accordingly, he once again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 443 of 2021, seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the investigation of Crime No.52/11/CBKK. 7. The learned Single Judge, after thoroughly assessing the entire factual matrix and available records, found that three different investigating agencies had conducted independent, detailed inquiries and had unanimously ruled out the possibility of homicide. The Court carefully examined the postmortem report, the statements of all witnesses, and the investigative findings before concluding that this was not a case warranting an investigation by the CBI. The Court categorically held that there was no reason to doubt the findings of the three investigating agencies, all of which conclusively established that Nisha’s death was a case of suicide and that no culpability could be attributed to her in-laws or any other person. Aggrieved by this decision, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. Sri. C.C. Anoop, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that in the earlier writ petition, the learned Single Judge had directed the investigating agency to ascertain the exact cause of death of the deceased. Aggrieved by this decision, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. Sri. C.C. Anoop, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that in the earlier writ petition, the learned Single Judge had directed the investigating agency to ascertain the exact cause of death of the deceased. However, despite such directions, the investigation remained perfunctory and failed to reach a definitive conclusion on whether Nisha’s death was a case of suicide or homicide and the role played by her in-laws in her untimely death. He further reiterated that the in-laws had falsely informed the father and the uncle of the deceased that she had died due to a fall in the bedroom, which he argued was a deliberate attempt to mislead. According to the learned counsel, the appellant, being a layman, was entirely dependent on the investigating agencies to bring out the truth and had no means to conduct an independent inquiry. He asserted that the police failed in their duty to conduct a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. She referred to the findings of the learned Single Judge in both writ petitions and emphasized that the learned Single Judge in the first instance had only wanted the investigating agency to investigate whether the in-laws had any role in the commission of the suicide. No one had a case that it was a case of homicide. However, in the writ petition, the appellant has upped the ante and now contends that it is a case of murder. The investigating agency after a thorough investigation found that his allegation was unfounded. She further pointed out that no material evidence had been produced to support the appellant's contention that his daughter’s death was a case of murder. Additionally, the appellant nor any other person ever alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, harassment, or any other form of mistreatment in her matrimonial home, which could have given rise to a reasonable suspicion. 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have examined the entire case record. 11. We find that the initial investigation was conducted extensively by the local police. They examined as many as 66 witnesses, obtained expert opinions regarding the scene where the deceased allegedly committed suicide, and collected relevant materials. 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have examined the entire case record. 11. We find that the initial investigation was conducted extensively by the local police. They examined as many as 66 witnesses, obtained expert opinions regarding the scene where the deceased allegedly committed suicide, and collected relevant materials. The investigating agency also recorded the statement of the doctor who conducted the autopsy. Based on these findings, they concluded that the death of Nisha was a clear case of suicide. The investigation did not disclose that either the petitioner or his family members ever raised a grievance suggesting that Nisha had been subjected to any form of harassment by her in-laws or that she had any compelling reason to take her own life due to any act or omission on the part of her husband or his family. On the contrary, the evidence collected indicated that her marital life was harmonious. The postmortem report further confirmed that she had hanged herself, affirming the conclusion that it was a clear case of suicide. Subsequently, in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the investigation was entrusted to the Crime Branch. A superior officer with substantial investigative expertise conducted a fresh inquiry and questioned an additional set of witnesses who had not been previously questioned. The investigating agency also took further statements from the forensic experts who took trace evidence and the doctor who conducted the autopsy to ascertain whether there was any indication of external involvement or foul play in her death. They diligently explored the possibility of homicide and whether there was any material to suggest that her suicide was abetted by her in-laws. After conducting a thorough and exhaustive investigation, the Crime Branch reached the same conclusion that Nisha had committed suicide and that there was no external involvement. No evidence was found to suggest that she had been subjected to harassment by her in-laws, nor was there any material to support the theory that her death was homicidal. It was after concluding so, that the learned Single Judge had held that there was no prima facie case for transferring the investigation to the CBI. 12. The only question before us is whether the said findings warrant any interference. 13. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. It was after concluding so, that the learned Single Judge had held that there was no prima facie case for transferring the investigation to the CBI. 12. The only question before us is whether the said findings warrant any interference. 13. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P v. Sahngoo Ram Arya , (2002) 5 SCC 521 the Apex Court observed that although the High Court has the power to order a CBI inquiry, that power should only be exercised if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material discloses prima facie a case calling for an investigation by CBI or by any other similar agency. A CBI (2002) 5 SCC 521 inquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely because the party makes some allegation. It was observed as follows in paragraph 5 of the judgment: 6. While none can dispute the power of this Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by CBI. This is a requirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause (1999) 6 SCC 667 . This Court in the said judgment at paragraph 174 of the Report has held thus: “174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate ‘any other offence’ is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been committed or a person's involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of ‘life’ and ‘liberty’ guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of ‘life’ and ‘liberty’ guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of ‘life’ has been explained in a manner which has infused ‘life’ into the letters of Article 21. Having evaluated the entire set of facts in the light of the records available, we are of the considered view that a proper and comprehensive investigation has been conducted by officers at various levels. The assumptions entertained by the appellant are insufficient to establish a prima facie case warranting a fresh inquiry by any other agency, let alone the CBI. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the decision of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition seeking a CBI investigation. No interference is warranted. This Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.