Allowed

Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Ribandar and Anr., v. Kennedy Afonso and 11 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2018CRMA/65/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application for further time to submit the final investigation report. It directed the constitution of a medical panel to determine the necessity of a further autopsy and whether the body must be retained for the criminal investigation, pending their report.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the Criminal Misc. Application for extension of time until the Panel reports to the Court.

Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Ribandar and Anr… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp1105-17ors.16-03-18

¶2

Santosh

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1105 OF 2017
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PEETITION NO.86 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.65 OF 2018
WITH

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.98 OF 2016.

¶6

Estelita Maria Dias, through her
Power of Attorney and Anr. ….. Petitioners.
V/s.

¶7

The State of Goa, through Chief
Secretary and others.….... Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Nigel da Costa and Ms. Maria Correia, Advocates for the
Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Aires Rodrigues, Respondent No. 3 in person.

¶10

Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for Respondent No.10 in WPCR
No.86/2016, for Respondents No.9 & 11 in Cri. Misc. Application
No.65/2018 and for Petitioners in WPCR No.98/2016.

¶11

Mr. S. R. Rivankar, Public Prosecutor for the Applicant-State in Cri.
Misc. Application No.65/2018.

¶12

Coram : N.M. Jamdar &
 Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.
 Date : 16 March 2018.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

 The Criminal Misc. Application No.65/2018 is filed by the
State. By this Application, the State prays for further four weeks'

¶15

2 wp1105-17ors.16-03-18

¶16

time to complete the investigation and submit the final investigation
report. This application is placed on the board along with Writ
Petition No.1105/2017, and other Criminal Writ Petitions.

¶17

2.In Writ Petition No.1105/2017, the family of the
deceased has challenged the order passed by the Goa Human Rights
Commission, directing that the funeral rites of the deceased be held.
The family of the deceased have challenged these directions on the
ground that if funeral rites are undertaken it will impede and hamper
the criminal investigation as the body will not be available. By order
dated 12 December 2017, we had directed that Writ Petition
No.1105/2017 be heard along with the Criminal Writ Petitions.

¶18

3.The learned Counsel for the Petitioners i.e. the family of
the deceased, and the Respondent No.3 in person in the Writ
Petition, agree that the situation of the body remaining in the
morgue cannot continue perpetuity and an immediate end to this
situation is beneficial of all. In the context of this consensus, we
asked the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Public
Prosecutor for the State, as to how the impasse could be ended.
After much deliberations at the bar, both the counsel, upon
instructions, suggested the following course of action. They jointly
suggested that a two Members panel, consisting of the Dean, Goa
Medical College and a Senior Expert in the subject suggested by the

¶19

3 wp1105-17ors.16-03-18

¶20

Petitioners, should be constituted. They agreed that this Panel will
decide whether the body needs to be kept in the morgue till the
entire investigation is complete or it is not necessary any more.

¶21

4. There was further discussion as to whether to reach the
above conclusion further autopsy is necessary. The learned counsel for
the parties agreed to leave that decision to the Panel. The learned
counsel agreed and suggested that the Panel will first find out
whether any further autopsy is needed. It was agreed by the learned
Public prosecutor that if the panel opines that further autopsy is
needed, then State will accept the recommendations of the Penal.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also agrees that, if the Panel
opines that further autopsy is not required, Petitioners will accept the
report of the Penal. If the Panel opines that the further autopsy is
needed, then the modalities of the further autopsy will be decided by
them and they will ensure that the method is transparent and
requisite care is taken. After this first decision is taken then the Panel
will decide next and main question whether the body needs to be
kept in the morgue till the investigation is needed.

¶22

5.Therefore, to enable the Panel to report to us on the
outcome of the first step, we defer the hearing of this petition till 5
April 2018. On that day, the Panel, through the Public Prosecutor
will report to the Court as to whether further autopsy is needed by

¶23

4 wp1105-17ors.16-03-18

¶24

them to take the decision as regards the need for preservation of the
body till the criminal investigation is over, or otherwise.

¶25

6.We make it clear that we have undertaken this exercise
only because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and
because of the consensus of the learned Counsel for the parties, and
it shall not be a reflection on the merits of the investigation, in any
manner.

¶26

7.The learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the
name of the Senior Expert chosen by the Petitioners will be informed
to the learned Public Prosecutor by tomorrow, i.e. 17 March 2018.
Respondent No.3 in person states that there may be an error in the
number of the proceedings in the prayer clause of the Petition and
the learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that he will examine the
position and carry out the amendment, if necessary. If necessary,
leave to amend for that purpose is granted.

¶27

8. Ad interim relief to continue.

¶28

9.In view of the above position, the Criminal Misc.
Application No.65/2018, for extension of time, is allowed and
disposed of.

¶29

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. N.M. Jamdar, J.

Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Ribandar and Anr., v. Kennedy Afonso and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Ribandar and Anr., v. Kennedy Afonso and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devyani Ambekar., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Anti-Corruption Branch, Rep. Thr. Public Prosecutor and 3 Ors.

Bipin Sengar and 4 Ors., Vs Shiv Pratap Singh Sikarwar and 7 Ors.

Rajendra T. Chodankar. Vs Govt. of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 8 Ors.

Jayesh Ashok Patil., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Deputy Collector and Sdo of Tiswadi., Vs Deepali Naik.

Drishti Cruise and Ferries Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Antonio Moises Menezes., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.