Dismissed

Akhila v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Aug 2018WA/1675/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of a State Police officer. The Single Judge had held that the SIT investigation was competent and proceeded against police officers, thus no transfer to CBI was necessary, warranting rejection of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. The investigation to be continued by the SIT.

Akhila Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

WA.No.1675 of 2018 IN WPC.14402/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.14402/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

AKHILA, AGED 24 YEARS, W/O. LATE SREEJITH, SHENOYPARAMBIL HOUSE DEVASWOM PADAM, VARAPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI (VENNELA) SMT.BABY JOSE SRI.ISAC SANJAY SMT.C.SREELAKSHMI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.

¶12

2.THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE QUARTERS, VAZHUTACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶13

3.DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (RURAL) ALUVA ERNAKULAM – 683 101.

¶14

4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 517.

¶15

5.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ERNAKULAM – 682 017.

¶16

RESPONDENT NO.5 REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL AND SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR C.B.I.

¶17

R BY SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, SPL.P.P. FOR C.B.I. R BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

HRISHIKESH ROY, C.J. &

¶20

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶21

W.A.NO.1675 OF 2018

¶22

Dated this the 13^th day of August, 2018

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.

¶25

Heard Sri. P. Chandrasekharan Pillai for the appellant, who was the petitioner in the W.P.(C).No.14402/2018, Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, the learned Public Prosecutor is representing the State Authorities. Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, the Special Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation is also present in court.

¶26

The appellant/petitioner is the wife of late Sreejith, who was arrested and suffered custodial torture at the Varapuzha Police Station. Following the injuries suffered by the detenue, he died in the hospital at about 7 a.m. on 9.4.2018. It was projected that Sreejith was done to death consequent upon a deep rooted criminal conspiracy hatched by the political elements and the appellant contends that the District Police Chief (Rural) Aluva, Ernakulam, conspired with the Police Officers to protect the policeman involved in the torture of the victim.

¶27

The writ petition came to be filed by the wife of the victim with a prayer to transfer the investigation of the Crime No.321/2018 in the Varapuzha Police Station, to the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI]. Her other prayer was for award of

¶28

W.A.No.1675/2018

¶29

¶30

compensation for the custodial death of Sreejith.

¶31

The learned Single Judge considered the police records and found that the appellant's husband was not an accused in the Crime No.321/2018 registered at the Varapuzha Police Station. It was next seen that the Special Investigation Team [SIT] arrested several Police Officers in the course of their investigation. The SIT obtained a report from the Medical Board on the alleged manipulation of the evidence and was conscious of the fact that the culprits are Police Officers.

¶32

After due consideration of the materials on record, the learned Judge opined that the investigation done by the State Police cannot be said to be inefficient or lopsided and the court further found that action was taken against the erring Police Officers expeditiously, without any delay. Thus it was concluded that the apprehension expressed by the victim's widow that there will not be a fair and impartial investigation, is incorrect.

¶33

The nature and quality of the evidence available in the case was also examined by the court, by perusing the case diary, and it was seen that several independent witnesses are available and those witnesses cannot be influenced by the accused Police nor they can tamper with the evidence. The learned Judge then opined that the result of the case will depend upon the oral evidence of the family members of Sreejith and of those witnesses, who were arrested and lodged in the lockup of the Police station, together with the victim.

¶34

W.A.No.1675/2018

¶35

¶36

On the above basis, the writ court held that the investigation carried out by the SIT is proceeding in the right direction, and there is no need for transferring the investigation to the CBI merely because, the wife of the deceased has made a plea, for such transfer. The court also noted that the Government has already paid Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the widow and she was also appointed in Government Service.

¶37

The learned counsel for the appellant reiterates his submissions made before the learned Single Judge and argues that when Police Officers are the accused in the crime, the CBI should be entrusted with the investigation. He further submits that although the District Police Chief (Rural) is also suspected to be involved in the crime, the SIT is yet to proceed against that senior Officers.

¶38

Reacting to the above, Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that as many as nine police personnel were arrested by the SIT, and it is on the basis of the report of the SIT, the Superintendent of Police was placed under suspension. It is further submitted that the investigation is still continuing and the SIT is yet to reach a conclusion in the matter, and if culpability of any other person is noticed, the SIT would certainly take due steps to rope in additional accused.

¶39

We have considered the relevant circumstances and analysed the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. Upon due consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned verdict. No material is produced before us to

¶40

W.A.No.1675/2018

¶41

¶42

suggest that the ongoing investigation is incompetent or is biased. In fact the SIT appears to be conducting the investigation in a professional manner and we would expect them to take the process to its logical conclusion. In such circumstance, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned verdict. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal

¶43

stands dismissed.

¶44

Sd/HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE

¶45

Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶46

prp/13/8/18

Akhila v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhila v. State of Kerala

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

N.Sethukumar Vs State of Kerala

A Mohammed Sherief Vs Rajendra Babu G

Dr. M.K.Sreedhar Vs State of Kerala

Sajithmol N.K. Vs the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala

P.R.Ashok Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf A.K Vs Byju