Allowed

Sudheendraprasad v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Dec 2022WP(C)/20379/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by the father of a boy who died at a bakery, the High Court ordered the CBI to conduct the investigation. The court found the prior inquiries insufficient to unearth the true nature of the homicide, despite scientific evidence suggesting poisoning.

What did the court decide?

Investigation of Crime No.493/2011 ordered to be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with logistical support from the State Police.

Sudheendraprasad Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20379 OF 2018

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

1 SUDHEENDRAPRASAD MELEPPARAMPIL, POWER HOUSE WARD, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM.

¶7

*2 ADDL.P2 CHATHRAPATHI SIVAJI, AGED 29 YEARS S/O SUDHEENDRAPRASAD, MELEPPARAMPIL, POWER HOUSE WARD, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT:691305. *[ADDL.P2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/10/2022 IN I.A NO:1/22 IN WP(C) 20379/2018]

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP SMT.K.V.DHANYA SRI.D.S.LOKANATHAN SMT.O.A.NURIYA ANN SUSAN GEORGE ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV MERIN ROSE KUNJULEKSHMI J.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF HQ, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004

¶12

W.P.(C).No.20379/2018

¶13

-:2:-

¶14

3 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION PLOT NO.5-B, 6TH FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR AND HEAD OF CHENNAI ZONE, III FLOOR, E.V.K.,SAMPATH BUILDING, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. 4 *B.SANDHYA ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004 *[R4 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 21/10/2022 IN I.A NO:3/22 IN WP(C) 20379/2018]

¶15

BY ADVS. SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR. PP SMT.MINI GOPINATH, DSG OF INDIA SRI MANU S- DSG

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).No.20379/2018

¶18

-:3:-

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2022

¶21

The distressed father of a 14 year old boy who died by cyanide like poisoning on 26.3.2011 in a bakery at Punalur at about 4 pm, has filed this writ petition to entrust the investigation to the 3^rd respondent/CBI. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioner expired. The brother of the deceased boy was impleaded as additional petitioner.

¶22

The son of the petitioner, Rana Prathap Singh, was a X^th standard student of Government Higher Secondary School Punalur. On 26.3.2011 at 3.30 pm, the last day of SSLC examination, the deceased boy and his close friends went to Imperial Bakery, at Punalur to drink juice. While waiting for the juice, Rana Prathap Singh collapsed with an outcry and died all on a sudden.

¶23

A crime was registered by the Punalur police as Crime No.493/2011 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The autopsy report

¶24

W.P.(C).No.20379/2018

¶25

-:4:-

¶26

showed that the death was due to poisoning. Initially, the investigation was conducted by the Inspector of Police, Punalur. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.34375/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to entrust the investigation to CBCID. Again, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.40699/2016, dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the CBCID. This Court as per judgment dated 20.11.2017, allowed the writ petition in part and the investigation was entrusted to Smt. B. Sandhya, IPS, Additional Director General of Police, South Zone. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by Sri. V. Ajith, Deputy Commissioner of Police, as per the direction of Smt. B. Sandhya, IPS. He conducted a detailed investigation. About 142 witnesses were questioned and many documents and properties were seized. Even though the scientific report suggested that the death was homicide, the investigating team could not conclusively and pin-pointedly conclude that the death was homicide in pure and simple. The investigating team found that

¶27

W.P.(C).No.20379/2018

¶28

-:5:-

¶29

though there are needles of suspicion against the classmates of the deceased, there is nothing to conclude with absolute certainty that they are actually involved in the incident. In the absence of conclusive evidence as to the nature of death, Sri. Ajith, DCP prepared a report to treat the case as undetected. Accordingly, final report to that effect was submitted before the learned Magistrate.

¶30

According to the petitioner, no effective investigation was undertaken and conducted by various investigating agencies which conducted investigation to find out the truth of the unnatural death of his son. The petitioner asserted that it is not a case of suicide, but a case of homicide. The petitioner suspects the friends of the deceased who were along with him at the juice shop at the time of his death as persons responsible for the death of the deceased. It is the case of the petitioner that the investigating agency conducted the investigation in an arbitrary manner. It is in these circumstances that he has approached this Court with a prayer to entrust the investigation to the CBI, who is the 3^rd respondent.

¶31

W.P.(C).No.20379/2018

¶32

-:6:-

¶33

I have heard Sri. Jayapradeep V., the learned counsel

¶34

for the petitioner, Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Smt. Mini Gopinath, the learned DSGI for CBI/3^rd respondent.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the initial investigation was conducted in a shabby manner and various material facts to rule out that it was a suicide and suggest that it was a homicide were not adverted to by the investigating agency. According to the learned counsel, the subsequent investigation conducted by the CBCID as well as the DCP was just a face saving measure and they also merely confirmed the findings of the initial investigating agency. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor Smt.T.V. Neema submitted that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is on the basis of mere surmises and thorough investigation conducted by the local police as well as by the CBCID thereafter could not pin-pointedly conclude that the death was homicide in pure and simple. There was also nothing to conclude with absolute certainty that the suspects/classmates of the deceased

¶36

W.P.(C).No.20379/2018

¶37

-:7:-

¶38

were actually involved in the incident. There is no need for any further investigation at all, added the Prosecutor. The learned DSGI for the CBI Smt.Mini submitted that no exceptional circumstances has been canvassed to entrust the investigation to CBI, that too, after the lapse of 11 years from the date of the incident. She further submitted that ordering an investigation in a case of this nature by the CBI is unwarranted.

¶39

Here is a case where, aggrieved by the inaction and inertia on the part of the investigating officers, the petitioner preferred several complaints before the police higher authorities. The petitioner has also approached this Court twice. As early as on 4.4.2011, the petitioner has filed a complaint to the Dy.S.P, Punalur highlighting his grievances and stating that it was a clear case of homicide and four of his classmates who were with the deceased at the time of death were the suspects. Again, another complaint was given to the Superintendent of Police, Kollam Rural, specifically pointing out the latches committed by the investigating agency. In W.P.(C).No.34375/2011, the petitioner

¶40

has sworn in an affidavit highlighting his grievances and also

¶41

W.P.(C).No.20379/2018

¶42

-:8:-

¶43

pointing out the latches committed by the investigating officer. However, it appears that those specific instances pointed out by the petitioner were not specifically addressed by the investigating agency who conducted the investigation all along.

¶44

As stated already, the deceased along with his four friends went to the juice shop directly from school. They were in school uniform and carrying school bags. There is no evidence to show that in between, they met anybody. The remnants of poison was detected in the uniform wore by the friends of the deceased who accompanied him and also in the bags carried by some of them. The scientific expert clearly opined that it was a case of homicide. The post mortem report was so specific that the death was due to poisoning. An expert opinion was sought by the investigating officer from Dr. K. Sasikala, Professor and Police Surgeon who was holding the charge of the Head of the Department, Medical College Thiruvananthapuram. She gave opinion that “the death was due to formic acid poisoning. The poisoning can be either homicidal or accidental. Chances are more for homicidal poisoning compared to accidental due to the

¶45

W.P.(C).No.20379/2018

¶46

-:9:-

¶47

nature of the poison.” Further, the circumstances highlighted by the petitioner in the complaint dated 04/04/2011 given to the Dy.S.P., Punalur clearly rules out the possibility of a suicide. Thus, it is almost clear that it is a clear case of homicide. However, the present investigating officer/DCP found that it could not be conclusively and pin-pointedly concluded that the death was homicide in pure and simple.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out several other circumstances to highlight his version that true facts were not unearthed by the investigating agency. After perusing the specific instances pointed out by the petitioner, the complaints given to Dy.S.P., S.P, before the Chief Minister and also in the affidavit filed before this Court, I am of the view that the grievance expressed by the petitioner is well founded. The petitioner has approached twice before this Court and the investigation was entrusted to CBCID as well as to a Senior IPS officer in the State. However, the true facts could not be unearthed.

¶49

For the reasons stated, I am of the view that this is a

¶50

W.P.(C).No.20379/2018

¶51

-:10:-

¶52

fit case where investigation could be entrusted to the CBI. The truth must come out after thorough and proper investigation by the CBI. Accordingly, the investigation of the Crime No.493/2011 of Punalur Police Station is ordered to be handed over to the 3^rd respondent/CBI. The entire records shall be handed over by the State Police to the CBI, which shall conduct the investigation in accordance with law and file a final report as early as possible. The State Police shall extend all logistical support to the CBI.

¶53

The Writ Petition is allowed as above.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

kp/APA

¶58

W.P.(C).No.20379/2018

-:11:-

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF REPORT DATED 05.08.2017. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF WRIT PETITION NO.40699/2016. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.2.12 IN WPC 34375/2011.

¶63

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2017 IN WP(C) NO.40699/2016.

¶64

Exhibit P5 THE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 24.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY.

Sudheendraprasad v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheendraprasad v. the 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

Xxxxx Vs State of Kerala

Mathew George, Vs State of Kerala

Ajesh T.K Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev Vs the Station House Officer

Maneesh S.K Vs State of Kerala

Rakesh Vs State of Kerala