Disposed

Sadanandan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Sept 2022WP(Crl.)/324/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging allegedly improper investigation into a death found in a well. Court directed police to secure pending chemical analysis report within six months and conduct further investigation if needed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 3 and 4 to ensure expeditious collection of chemical analysis report and conduct further investigation if necessary within six months.

Sadanandan Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(Crl.).No.324/2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944

¶7

WP(CRL.) NO. 324 OF 2022

¶8

CRIME NO.828/2018 OF Mannarkkad Police Station, Palakkad

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

SADANANDAN,

¶11

AGED 71 YEARS, DR.V.K RAM COMPOUND, ROBERTSON PET, K.G.F, KARNATAKA, PIN – 563 122.

¶12

BY ADVS. VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN B.ANUSREE RESHMA UNNIKRISHNAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

¶15

2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, VAZHUTHACAUAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 014.

¶16

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PALAKKAD, SEKHARIPURAM, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 010.

¶17

4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANNARGHAT POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 582.

¶18

BY SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(Crl.).No.324/2022

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner is the brother of one Anathavalli, who was found dead on 16.12.2018 between 8.30 and 9.30 A.M in a well in the petitioner’s brother’s house under suspicious circumstances. In respect of the death of the said Ananthavalli, Ext.P1 FIR was registered by Mannarghat Police Station under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition is that no proper investigation is being conducted by the Police in the said case. According to him, the deceased Ananthavalli was residing along with her and the petitioner’s brother and there were some disputes between her and the said brother. According to the petitioner, the death of the deceased Ananthavalli is a matter to be investigated in depth as he suspects that she was murdered. The writ petition was submitted in such circumstances, seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondent to hand over the investigation in Crime No.828 of 2018 of the Mannarghat Police Station, Palakkad District to the State Crime Branch.

¶25

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 3 to order for a further investigation or re-investigation in Crime No.828 of

¶26

W.P.(Crl.).No.324/2022

¶27

¶28

2018 of the Mannarghat Police Station, Palakkad District by some other agency under the 2^nd respondent.”

¶29

Heard Sri.Vishnu Bhuvanendran, learned counsel for

¶30

the petitioner and Sri.Vipin Narayan, learned Government Pleader for the State.

¶31

In response to the averments in the writ petition, the learned Government Pleader brought my attention to the statement filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said statement, it is mentioned that, after the registration of the crime, the matter was investigated in detail by the Police. As part of the investigation, 22 witnesses were questioned and their statements were recorded. The Postmortem was conducted and the report was collected and the statement of the doctor was also obtained. After examining the entire materials which they could collect, they arrived at a conclusion that the death was an accidental death and accordingly, a final report was submitted in this regard. The copy of the final report submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ottappalam, by the Police is also produced along with the statement. The aforesaid final report would indicate that the investigation was closed subject to the condition that, upon receipt of the FSL report of the samples collected from the body

¶32

W.P.(Crl.).No.324/2022

¶33

¶34

of the deceased, further investigation would be conducted if found

¶35

necessary.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits in this regard that the investigation conducted by the police was not proper, and the final report was submitted without completing the investigation. The learned counsel highlights certain discrepancies in the statement submitted by the respondents and the final report submitted by the Police. It is pointed out that, as per the postmortem certificate and the statement of the doctor who conducted the postmortem, it could be seen that the deceased sustained only one injury, which was described as contusion 2.5 x 2 cm on inner aspect of scalp on right half of back of head, 9 cm behind the top of the ear.

¶37

According to the petitioner, considering the height of the deceased and the diameter of the well in which the body was found, a proper investigation as to the cause of such injury was necessitated. According to him, the nature of the injury suggests some other cause and the same was not properly enquired into by the Police. Apart from the above, it is also contended that the police submitted the final report even without awaiting the FSL report even though in the statement of the doctor who conducted

¶38

W.P.(Crl.).No.324/2022

¶39

¶40

the postmortem, it was clearly mentioned that the actual cause of death could be verified after receiving the report of chemical analysis of blood, bone marrow of sternum and the result of diatom test.

¶41

I have gone through the materials produced on record and the contentions raised from either side. As far as the discrepancy highlighted by the petitioner as to the nature of injuries is concerned, it can be seen that the doctor clearly explains the cause of the said injuries in his statement based on the finding which he arrived at after conducting the postmortem. It is specifically observed that the said injury was caused by forceful contact with a hard surface or object. It was also observed that the said injury was not the cause of the death of the deceased. Since it is an undisputed fact that the deceased had fallen into the well, it is possible that the injury must have been sustained during the fall. In the absence of any specific materials and other suspicious circumstances, the finding entered into by the doctor as to the cause of death and cause of injuries cannot be doubted.

¶42

With regard to the alleged urgency shown by the Police in filing the report, I am of the view that the said contention is

¶43

W.P.(Crl.).No.324/2022

¶44

¶45

also not legally sustainable. On perusal of the statement as well as the final report, it is discernible that the investigation was conducted in an effective manner, and apparently, no lapses could be found therein. As far as the non-receipt of the FSL report is concerned, sufficient safeguard has been taken by the investigation officer by making a clear observation in the final report that, upon receipt of the FSL report, the matter will be reviewed and in case any details of commission of a crime are revealed, the matter will be investigated further. In my view, the aforesaid condition is sufficient to safeguard the interest of the petitioner, and I am unable to find any discrepancy in the matter of submission of the final report in such a situation.

¶46

However, it is a fact that even though the death occurred on 06.12.2018 and the samples collected from the body of the deceased were sent for chemical analysis to the laboratory immediately thereafter, even now, the report thereon has not been obtained. The learned Government Pleader also could not produce any materials indicating the steps they have taken as follow-up action for getting the said report. Therefore, I am of the view that some direction in this regard has to be issued to ensure

¶47

W.P.(Crl.).No.324/2022

¶48

¶49

that the chemical analysis report is received and the investigation officer examines the same for further action without any delay.

¶50

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 3 and 4 to ensure that further follow-up action is taken to get the chemical analysis report of the samples collected from the body of the deceased as expeditiously as possible and if upon examination of the same, further investigation shall be conducted, if found necessary. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that the time limit for completing the above exercise can be fixed as six months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶54

DG/16.9.22

¶55

W.P.(Crl.).No.324/2022

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 324/2022

¶58

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶59

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 06.12.2018 IN CRIME NO. 828/2018 OF MANNARGHAT POLICE STATION. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT DATED 13.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINDENDANT OF POLICE PALAKKAD DISTRICT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT DATED 13.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINDENDANT OF POLICE PALAKKAD DISTRICT

Sadanandan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanandan 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

Ebin Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Sajith George Vs V.K. Praveen Kumar

Naisam Vs the Station House Officer

Shanavas K.A Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Anoop P Vs State of Kerala