Remanded

Asha Anoop v. the State Police Chief

Kerala HC1 Nov 2021WP(C)/11676/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the suicide of a nursing student, the petitioner alleged procedural lapses in inquest and postmortem and ineffective investigation. The High Court of Kerala, acknowledging prima facie deficiencies in the procedural conduct, issued an order to transfer investigation duties to a higher authority.

What did the court decide?

Order of direction to the appropriate police authorities to entrust the investigation of Crime No.107/2021 to the District Crime Branch, Pathanamthitta, to be conducted by an officer of the rank of DS

Asha Anoop Vs the State Police Chief — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11676 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ASHA ANOOP AGED 43 YEARS W/O.ANOOP, CHARIVUKALAYIL HOUSE, CHAMBALOOR MURI, KOONAMKARA P.O., PERUNAD VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 711. BY ADV V.SETHUNATH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THYCAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 014.

¶10

2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (SOUTHERN ZONE) VAZHUTHAKKAD, THYCAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.

¶11

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 645.

¶12

4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 672.

¶13

5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶14

PERUNAD POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 711.

¶15

6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHITTAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 663. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

PP .SRI RENJIT GEORGE,SR.PP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 11676 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2021

¶22

This writ petition has been filed by the mother of

¶23

the deceased girl Akshya Anoop, who committed suicide and which is registered as unnatural death in Crime No.107/2021 of Perunad Police Station, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

Exhibit-P1 is the copy of the FIR and FIS. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner’s daughter was 20 years old. She committed suicide at her house on 8.2.2021 at about 8 p.m. There was no signes of any depression prior to her death. The FIS was given by the brother of the petitioner. The inquest was conducted on 10.2.2021 at 10 a.m.

¶25

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of inquest, nobody closely in relation to the petitioner was present and the inquest proceedings were led by one Jaya Sujaykumar, the mother of suspect, Abijith. Exhibit P2 is the true copy of the Inquest Report dated 10.2.2021. The learned counsel would also content that the

¶26

WP(C) NO. 11676 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

Postmortem was conducted in a careless manner and without collecting necessary details. The true copy of the Postmortem certificate is produced as Exhibit-P3.

¶29

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner ,

¶30

no vaginal swab was taken. He would also content that the request by the petitioner to conduct postmortem at Kottayam Medical College was refused and denied by SHO, Perunad Police Station. The doctor had prepared a very cryptic report without examining the whole body. The police surgeon conducted the examination in the presence of the SHO, Perunad Police Station. No video recording of postmortem was taken where as video recording of Inquest was taken. It is alleged that due to the High Handed political pressure, the doctor had omitted the examination of all body parts except neck.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner further produced the photo copy of the personal diary of the deceased girl, and it is marked as Exhibit-P4. Ext. P5 is the translated version of Ext.P4 to Malayalam. According to him, from the letters and photos attached to the

¶32

¶33

WP(C) NO. 11676 OF 2021

¶34

personal diary, reveals the close contact of the deceased and one Yadhu Krishnan. The deceased and Yadhu Krishnan had sexual relationship also. Since the postmortem examination was not conducted properly, the evidence with regard to the sexual assault also could not be collected.

¶35

The petitioner would also content that, the petitioner’s husband was abroad and he came down to Kerala only on getting information regarding the unnatural death of his daughter. He filed Exhibit-P6 complaint to the SHO and dissatisfied with the action taken, again filed a complaint, which is produced as Exhibit-P7. Exhibit-P8 is the complaint filed by the petitioner to the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta. Exhibit-P9 is the true copy of the complaint given by the petitioner jointly to the Director of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram, District Medical Officer, Pathanamthitta, District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta, .

¶36

It is also alleged that there was threatening from Yedhu Krishnan and Abijith Sujai to withdraw the present prosecution proceedings initiated by them. Exhibit-P10 is a copy of subsequent complaint filed by the petitioner before

¶37

¶38

WP(C) NO. 11676 OF 2021

¶39

the District Police Chief, raising suspicion against Abhijith Jayan also. Exhibit-P11 is the copy of another complaint given by the petitioner to the District Police Chief stating that the present investigation is doubtful and faulty. Thereafter, the District Police Chief entrusted the investigation to the 4^th respondent, the DYSP. There is still influence of political leadership and proper investigation is not conducted by the DYSP also. Hence, they approached this Court, for ordering investigation of the above crime through Crime Branch supervision by the 1^st respondent.

¶40

Notice was issued to the respondents. The learned Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the respondents. The statement of facts has been filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ranni/4^th respondent, in which he had given a detailed description of the investigation conducted so far and according to him, the statement of witnesses including the petitioner, father, brother and other relatives and neighbours of the deceased were recorded. The mobile phone of the deceased was also seized and forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for transfer to FSL and that

¶41

WP(C) NO. 11676 OF 2021

¶42

¶43

has not been send so far due to the Covid-19 pandemic restriction. It is also stated in the report that as per the call details on 08.2.2021 of the deceased girl, Sneha Yohannan, Blessy and Yadhu Krishnan’s mother were engaged in a video conference. But Yadhu Krishnan hasn't participated in the meeting. The last call of the deceased was made to Smt.Blessy.

¶44

It is the specific contention of the petitioner that, Blessy informed that, she was told by others that if anybody questioned her the name of Yadhu Krishnan should not be revealed.

¶45

The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand would content that all effective measures are being taken by the respondents. The mobile phones could not be sent in time to the FSL due to the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions.

¶46

The learned counsel also highlighted Para No.11 of the statement of facts submitted by the Investigating Officer. Wherein there is a statement of the 5^th respondent, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation of the case and conducted the inquest by himself and was present throughout

¶47

¶48

WP(C) NO. 11676 OF 2021

¶49

the postmortem examination, but no direction was given to conduct specific examination about the sexual assault on the deceased. Ext.P3 is the Postmortem certificate of the deceased.

¶50

In reply to the statement filed by the respondent, the learned counsel produced the copy of the call details pertaining to 08.2.2021 with respect to Mr.Yadhu Krishnan, Sathidevi and Kala before the alleged incident to show the frequent contact between them and deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced Exhibit-P13, alleged to be a copy of the receipt issued by the ambulance driver to show that they made arrangements to get the postmortem conducted at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. But, at the instance of the Inspector of Police it was conducted at Pathanamthitta. According to the petitioner there are materials in the Diary of deceased to prove the involvement of Yedhu Krishnan.

¶51

It appears that, this is a case in which the young girl, a nursing student of 20 years committed suicide and so far nobody has been arraigned as accused. Ext.P4

¶52

WP(C) NO. 11676 OF 2021 8

¶53

and Ext.P5 the writings in the diary prima facie showed the intimacy of the deceased with Yedhu Krishnan. On the date of the incident as per the statements of facts there was a video conference over phone among the deceased, Yedhu Krishnan's mother, Blessy etc.

¶54

Records would reveal that inquest was conducted on 10.2.2021 in between 10.00 to 11.45 hours. Only two persons were cited as witnesses in the inquest. Among them one is a neighbour and another is relative of the deceased. Member of Panchayath or anybody responsible to represent the member of Panchayath was not present. There is nothing to show that the Police Officer made any effort to procure the presence of anybody in close touch with the deceased at the time of inquest. Her father had come down from gulf on 10.2.2021 on getting information regarding her death. So also in spite of the fact that the deceased was a 20 year old student, no attempt was made by the Police Officer to give any instruction to the Doctor to conduct examination to find out whether there was any sexual assault. However, the report of 4^th respondent would state that police surgeon opined that there

¶55

WP(C) NO. 11676 OF 2021

¶56

¶57

was no symptoms of sexual assault especially because the deceased was in menstruation. It is highly improbable that without making any request for conducting examination at the time of postmortem to find out any sexual assault to the Doctor, the Doctor would make any such opinion of absence of sexual assault. Postmortem certificate is also silent in that aspect. The above factors prima facie reveals the hollowness of the investigation that is progressing at the hands of the 4^th respondent.

¶58

In the said circumstances, I find it just and proper to entrust the investigation of Crime No.107/2021 of Perunad Police Station to the District Crime Branch, Pathanamthitta, and the investigation shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of DYSP.

¶59

The writ petition is disposed accordingly.

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE

SMF

WP(C) NO. 11676 OF 2021

¶64

¶65

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11676/2021

¶66

PETITION EXHIBIT	ER'S EX P1	HIBITS THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. AND IN CRIME NO.107/2021 DATED 9/2/2 PERUNAD POLICE STATION.	F.I.S. 021 OF
EXHIBIT	P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE INQUEST DATED 10/2/2021 IN CRIME NO.10 OF PERUNAD POLICE STATION.	REPORT 7/2021
EXHIBIT	P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE POST CERTIFICATE NO.50/21 CONDUCTED POLICE SURGEON ON 10/2/202 PATHANAMTHITTA GENERAL HOSPITAL.	MORTEM BY THE 1 AT
EXHIBIT	P4	THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PE DIARY OF THE DECEASED GIRL.	RSONAL
EXHIBIT	P5	THE TRUE COPY OF MALAYALAM TRANS OF EXT.P4.	LATION
EXHIBIT	P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE PETITIONERS HUSBAND TO T RESPONDENT DATED 18/02/2021.	GIVEN HE 5TH
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PRE BEFORE R5 DATED 17/04/2021.	FERRED
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PRE BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF 22/04/2021.	FERRED DATED
EXHIBIT	P9	THE TRUE COPY OF	THE
		COMPLAINT/PETITION GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT	THE POLICE
		CHIEF, DISTRICT MEDICAL OF	FICER,
		PATHANAMTHITTA AND DIRECTOR OF SERVICES DATED 28/04/2021.	HEALTH
EXHIBIT	P10	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 3/5/2021.	GIVEN DATED
EXHIBIT	P11	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT	GIVEN
		BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 5/5/2021.	DATED

¶67

//TRUE COPY//

¶68

PA TO JUDGE

Asha Anoop v. the State Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Anoop v. the State Police Chief

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

A Vs State of Kerala

Binu Gopal @ Binu Vs State of Kerala

Binu Vs State of Kerala

Jishnu Vs State of Kerala

Khalid, Vs State of Kerala

Sahad Vs the State of Kerala