Allowed

Mohandas v. Vs State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jun 2016WP(C)/22720/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala examined grievances raised by a father of a deceased man, alleging murder in a motor accident where the investigation appeared tainted by lack of competence and unfair conclusions regarding alcohol consumption. The court found support for the petitioner's apprehension.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to initiate steps to hand over the investigation to the District Police Chief for further inquiry by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Mohandas v. Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/6TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 22720 of 2013 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MOHANDAS V., AGED 54, S/O. VISWAMBAHARAN, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, KURAKKANNI, VARKALA.P.O., VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695141.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.PUSHPARAJAN

¶9

SRI.O.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶12

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶13

KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶14

3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶15

ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶16

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695141.

¶17

5. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, PLOT NO.B, 6TH FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,

¶18

NEW DELHI-110003, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶19

R-R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I. R1-R4 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rvs.

¶22

WP(C).No. 22720 of 2013 (L)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT. P1.	TRUE COPY	OF THE F.I.R. REGISTERED BY VARKALA POLICE IN
	CRIME NO.	800/2011.

¶26

EXT. P2.	TRUE COPY THE DECEASE	OF THE POS D AKHIL DAS	T MORTEM CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF @ NANDU.
EXT. P3.	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF THE BEFORE THE	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.
EXT. P4.	TRUE COPY SECRETARY, 2-8-2013.	OF THE C GENERAL	OMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE JOINT ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT DATED

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 22720 of 2013

¶35

- - - - Dated 27^th June, 2016

¶36

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

1.Akhil Das @ Nandu who was aged 19 years in the year 2011 sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident which occurred near to Altharamoodu, varkala. The petitioner herein is his father.

¶39

2.Crime No.800 of 2011 of Varkala Police Station was registered under the head “Motor Occurrence”. Investigation was taken over by the Sub Inspector of Police. According to the petitioner, his son was brutally murdered by certain persons and that it was a planned cold blooded murder.

¶40

3.The petitioner in the said circumstances submitted Ext.P3 representation before the higher authorities praying that proper investigation be conducted to trace out the actual culprits. When his fervent prayers went unanswered, the instant petition was filed seeking issuance of direction to

¶41

W.P.C. No.22720 of 2013 -2-

¶42

respondents 1 and 2 to constitute a high level investigation team headed by an Officer not below the rank of DIG of Police for carrying out the investigation.

¶43

4.As directed by this Court, a statement dated 21.1.2014 was filed by the 4^th respondent, the officer who investigated the crime. The statement reveals a different version of the incident. According to the 4^th respondent, the deceased, in an inebriated condition, rode his Motor Cycle in a rash and negligent manner, and after losing control, rammed on a milestone resulting in serious injuries. He was initially taken to the He was initally taken to the Government Hospital Varkala from where he was removed to the Medical College Hospital, Thriuvananthapuram, where he was declared dead. The said officer relied on the statements of the friends of the deceased and other circumstances to arrive at the said conclusion. A subsequent statement was filed on 1.4.2014, in which also the same conclusions are repeated. It is reported that the Final report has been laid

¶44

W.P.C. No.22720 of 2013

¶45

-3-

¶46

in the said case.

¶47

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner highlights various circumstances, which according to him points to the fact that the petitioner's son was murdered. According to the learned counsel, though the prosecution claims that petitioner's son was in a drunken stage, the wound certificate prepared at Varkala Hospital and postmortem report prepared by the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram does not reveal the presence of ethyl alcohol in his internal organs or blood. He refers to Exhibit P 2, the Autopsy report to substantiate his contention. The Accident register cum wound certificate prepared by the Doctor at the Government Hospital Varkala is handed over by the learned Public Prosecutor, which also does not reveal the fact that the deceased had consumed alcohol. The learned counsel submits that the mahazar prepared in respect of the vehicle would reveal that another vehicle had hit on the back side of the bike in which the deceased had

¶48

W.P.C. No.22720 of 2013 -4-

¶49

travelled which fact also raises strong doubts in the manner of death of Akhil Das.

¶50

6.It is undisputed that the wound certificate or the autopsy report of the deceased did not reveal the presence of ethyl alcohol in the blood of the deceased. The statement of Accused No 4 reveals that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and he has relied on the statements of the friends of the deceased to conclude that the deceased was drunk at the time of incident. It is also seen stated that the witnesses questioned by the 4^th respondent had pleaded ignorance when questioned as to how they deduced that the deceased had consumed alcohol. If that be the case, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the Investigation was tardy and all possible angles were not investigated cannot be ignored.

¶51

7.As held by the Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others (2013)5SCC 762 t he expression fair and proper investigation in criminal jurisprudence was

¶52

held to encompass two imperatives; firstly the

¶53

W.P.C. No.22720 of 2013 -5-

¶54

investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law and secondly, the entire emphasis has to be to bring out the truth of the case before the court of competent jurisdiction. In other words the basic purpose of an investigation is to bring out the truth by conducting fair and proper investigation, in accordance with law and to ensure that the guilty are punished. After considering the materials on record, the discrepancies pointed out by the Petitioner and the deductions made by the Investigating Officer, I am of the view that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the investigation was not free and fair and that the same displays gross lack of competence in investigative techniques cannot be dismissed as diatribe of a ill fated father.

¶55

8.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the State has no objection in directing the District Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram (Rural) to re open the investigation and to conduct a further Investigation in

¶56

W.P.C. No.22720 of 2013 -6-

¶57

view of the sensitive nature of the issues involved.

¶58

9.Having regard to the said submission, and to alleviate the grievances of the distraught father, the 2^nd respondent is directed to initiate necessary steps to hand over the investigation in Crime No.800 of 2011 of Varkala Police Station to the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, who shall take steps to conduct further Investigation himself or by entrusting the matter with an officer, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigation shall be supervised by the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Rural and all possible steps shall be taken to complete the investigation in an expeditious manner.

¶59

The writ petition will stand allowed. No costs.

¶60

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶61

kp/-27.6.16

Mohandas v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohandas v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh.K.R. Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sufaid Vs State of Kerala

Chandrika Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Sajesh N.V Vs State of Kerala