Disposed

K.P.Akilesan v. the Superintendent of Police,Kannur

Kerala HC29 Jun 2011Crl.MC/1881/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed reinvestigation into a case involving the death of the petitioner's daughter. The judge observed the investigating officer failed to question a specific respondent regarding phone calls prior to the incident and ordered verification.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kannur, to verify the investigation and question Rathish if not yet questioned, submitting a further report.

K.P.Akilesan Vs the Superintendent of Police,Kannur — Kerala HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1881 of 2011()

¶6

CRIME NO. 36/2009 OF KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

---------------------

¶9

K.P.AKILESAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEERKADAVU, AZHEEKODU SOUTH, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR, PIN - 670 001.

¶14

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR - 670 001.

¶15

3. T.RATHISH, S/O.SUGUNAN, KAVERI SADAN, MARAKAPPU BEACH, OZHINCHAVALAPPU, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671 315.

¶16

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, C.B.C.I.D., KANNUR, PIN - 670 001.

¶17

5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.

¶18

R1, R2, R4 & R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

...2/-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S

¶24

ANNEXURE A-1 : COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 36/2009 OF KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION.

¶25

ANNEXURE A-2 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A-3 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 26/7/2009. ANNEXURE A-4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.1.2010 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 32/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶26

ANNEXURE A-5 : COPY OF THE CLOSER REPORT DATED 30.6.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY.

¶27

ANNEXURE A-5(a) : TYPES COPY OF ANNEXURE A-5.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶33

Crl. M.C No. 1881 OF 2011

¶34

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF JUNE, 2011

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

Helna, daughter of petitioner was married to one Rakesh on 17-11-2005 and a child was born in that wedlock. While so, it is stated, Helna developed illicit intimacy with Rathish, younger brother of Rakesh and that resulted in the matrimonial relation being broken up. Since 30-07-2008 onwards Helna and her child were staying with her parents at her paternal home. On 01-03-2009, at about 2.30 p.m. she committed suicide with her child jumping in front of a moving train. The Kannur City police registered Crime No.36 of 2009. The Sub Inspector of Police conducted investigation. Helna had filed a complaint against her husband and others alleging offence under Section 498 of IPC on which the police registered a Crime No.641 of 2008. After the death of Helna and her child petitioner approached this Court with Crl. M.C No.32/2010 requesting that since the death of deceased was on account of cruelty of her husband and others, Crime No.36 of 2009 is to be investigated in continuation of Crime No.641

¶37

Crl. M.C No.1881/2011 -2-

¶38

of 2008. This Court by Annexure-A4, order did not accept that request. The Sub Inspector conducted investigation in Crime No.36 of 2009 and submitted Annexure-A5, final report before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery to the effect that Helna, along with her child committed suicide on account of frustration due to the matrimonial relation breaking up of since she was not able to live with Rathish, brother of her husband. In this proceeding petitioner seeks a direction to conduct reinvestigation in the case by a Special team of competent officers. Learned counsel submitted that investigation was not in the proper line. It is submitted that Annexure-A5 does not reveal that police had questioned Rathish. Which was absolutely necessary.

¶39

Learned Public prosecutor has submitted that investigation did not reveal anything suspicious in the death of Helna and child. It is pointed out that she had illicit relationship with Rathish and on account of that, herself and husband fell apart and started residence separately since 30-07-2008 onwards. In the meantime Rakesh issued a notice for divorce on the above said allegation. Helna used to contact Rathish over mobile phone with the intention of living with him, that relationship was not appreciated by petitioner though, the

¶40

Crl. M.C No.1881/2011 -3-

¶41

mother of Helna was not that much against it. Out of frustration she committed suicide. It is pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that on the previous night of incident Rathish and Helna had contacted over their mobile phones on three occasions from .03 a.m. till 12.54 a.m., initially for 29.55 minutes , then 1.01 minutes then for 9.95 minutes and again for 9.05 minutes. From the above materials the Sub Inspector concluded that there was no suspicious circumstance behind the incident and it was out of frustration.

¶42

But, learned Public Prosecutor was not able to say whether or not the Investigating officer had questioned Rathish to find what exactly was the subject of the talk between him and the deceased on the previous night. I think, the Investigating officer had to ascertain that as well before reaching any conclusion.

¶43

In the circumstances, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kannur is directed to verify the investigation conducted by the Sub Inspector and take necessary steps to question Rathish in case he has not already been questioned and based on that, he may submit further report to the Sub Divisional Magistrate or other appropriate authority, as provided under law and as

¶44

Crl. M.C No.1881/2011

¶45

-4-

¶46

circumstances warranted. The District Police Chief, Kannur shall issue necessary orders (if any required) in this regard within a weeks of getting a copy of this order. Petitioner shall deliver a copy of the order to that officer.

¶47

Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of with the above direction.

¶48

Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶49

AMG

¶50

True copy

¶51

P.A to Judge

K.P.Akilesan v. the Superintendent of Police,Kannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Akilesan v. the Superintendent of Police,Kannur

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

Union of India Vs State

Inspector,Cbi Vs Anilmon Thomas

Gopachandran Vs State of Kerala

Haroofa Vs S.I.of Police

Abdulsalam Vs State of Kerala

Subash Vs State of Kerala