A.G.LAL v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1942 Crl.MC.No.179 OF 2020(B)** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 1017/2012 DATED 30-04-2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOZHIKODE** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 31/2012 DATED 12-09-2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOZHIKODE** **CRIME NO.58/2011 OF Chemmangad Police Station , Kozhikode** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **A.G.LAL, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA KERALA 688 524, RESIDING AT XANADU, VENNALA P.O, KERALA, KOCHI 682 028** **BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJESH** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.No.179 OF 2020(B)** ..2.. ## **ORDER** _**Dated this the 5th day of August 2020**_ The petitioner, who was entrusted with the investigation in Crime No.58 of 2011 of Chemmangad Police Station, for one day, has filed this Crl.M.C seeking to expunge the disparaging remarks in Annexure A1 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Kozhikode in Sessions Case No.1017 of 2012. 2. The essential facts are as follows: On completion of investigation in Crime No.58 of 2011, final report was submitted alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution allegation was that the accused, who were serving policemen, had caused grievous injuries to one Udayan due to their **Crl.MC.No.179 OF 2020(B)** ..3.. previous enmity towards him and Udayan had succumbed to his injuries at the hospital. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined PW 1 to PW27 and marked Exts.P1 to P29. On the defence side, Exts.D1 to D4 were marked, but no witness was examined. By Annexure A1 judgment, the trial court found the prosecution to have failed in proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that, absolutely no evidence was produced to connect the accused to the crime. The learned Sessions Judge had further found that the investigating officers, ie, PWs 23, 25 to 27 had conducted the investigation in desultory manner and were not eager to bring the culprits to book. 3. The who in his as petitioner, capacity investigating officer was examined as PW25, is aggrieved by the following observations and directions **Crl.MC.No.179 OF 2020(B)** ..4.. ## in the judgment: _“ Para 35. I am indeed sorry to notice the scrappy and haphazard manner of investigation conducted by PW23, 25 to 27. I wonder whether the higher officers do actually scrutinize the case diaries or exercise any supervision over investigation or the work of investigator. I am inclined to think that it was a motivated omission on the part of the investigators._ _Para 36:The records would reveal that the investigation done by the investigating officers i.e. Pws.23, 25 to 27 and desultory and they were not eager to bring the real accused to book._ _Para 38:- Before parting with the case, I feel that it is my duty as a Sessions Judge, to bring to the notices of the Director General of Police, State of Kerala about the designatedly defective investigation, intentional acts of omission and commission prejudicial to the case of the prosecution, in breach of professional standards and investigative requirements of law, during the course of investigation by the investigating agency in this case._ _Para 41:- In this case the evidence would clearly show that it is a case of irresponsible investigation. The prosecution attempts to_ **Crl.MC.No.179 OF 2020(B)** ..5.. _misdirect the trial on the basis of a perfuctionary or designatedly defective investigation as well as to withhold material evidence from the court. Due to that, guilty person is not booked in this case. It cannot be considered a case of bonafide or unintentional omission or commission. It is not a case of faulty investigation simplicitor but is an investigation coloured with motivation or an attempt to ensure that the suspect can go scot-free. According to me, the way the investigation conducted by the investigating officers in this case is considered a serious enough to call for departmental enquiry or action._ _Para 42:- Therefore, the Director General of Police, State of Kerala is hereby requested to examine the case and proceed in accordance with law. Office is directed to sent a copy of judgment to the Director General of Police, State of Kerala through the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.”_ 4. Heard Sri.T.R.Rajesh learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the unwarranted observations made in **Crl.MC.No.179 OF 2020(B)** ..6.. the judgment has not only hampered the petitioner's career prospects, but has resulted in disciplinary action being initiated. 6. It is submitted that Crime No.58 of 2011 was registered at the Chemmangad Police Station on 05.03.2011 after Udayan succumbed to his injuries. Since suspicion was raised regarding the reasons for Udayan's death, the District Police Chief, Kozhikode, entrusted the investigation with Superior Police Officers. The petitioner, who was working as the Assistant Commissioner of Police, District Crime Records Bureau, Kozhikode City was entrusted with the investigation on 09.03.2011. It is submitted that after taking over the investigation, the petitioner had questioned one eye witness and two mahazar witnesses. The scene mahazar was prepared by the petitioner and being fully convinced that the victim Udayan was murdered, the petitioner had submitted **Crl.MC.No.179 OF 2020(B)** ..7.. Annexure-A8 report before the jurisdictional court, to delete Section 174 Cr.P.C. and to incorporate Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. From 10.09.2011 onwards, the investigation was conducted by another Officer. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor also admit that the petitioner was in charge of the investigation in Crime No.58 of 2011 only for one day (09.03.2011) and that he had conducted the investigation in the manner claimed above. 8. On perusal of the judgment, I am unable to find any discussion, based on the evidence elicited, regarding the manner in which PW25 had conducted the investigation. All that is stated in the judgment is that PW25 is another Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation only for a day and had prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar. It is noted that in his cross-examination, PW25 had stated that Ext.P2 First information Statement was recorded by the Circle **Crl.MC.No.179 OF 2020(B)** ..8.. Inspector and that he had never enquired as to why the Circle Inspector of Town Police Station had gone to the Chemmangad Police Station and recorded Ext.P2 statement. 9. The Apex Court has often cautioned against the tendency to make disparaging and derogatory remarks against subordinate courts as well as quasijudicial and other authorities/persons. In this regard, it would be profitable to advert to the following observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in _Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar_ and another [(1986) 2 SCC 569] _“24. It is, therefore, settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof to animadvert on that conduct. We hold that the adverse remarks made against the appellant were neither justified nor called for.”_ **Crl.MC.No.179 OF 2020(B)** ..9.. 10. Herein also, it is evident that the disparaging remarks in Annexure A1 Judgment was made without considering the action taken by the petitioner during his stint as the officer in charge of the investigation for a day. Circumstances being such, there was no reason for the learned Sessions Judge to have made derogatory comments against the manner in which investigation was conducted by the petitioner. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed and the derogatory comments at paragraphs 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 in Annexure A1 judgment, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, shall stand expunged. SB/06/08/2020 **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** **Crl.MC.No.179 OF 2020(B)** ..10.. ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE V, KOZHIKODE DIVISION DATED 30-04-2014 IN S.C 1017/201** - **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KANNUR RANGE VIDE NO. A2 (A) 22414/2016/KR DATED 12-012017** - **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ANTI-TERRORISTS FORE, THRIPUNITHURA ERNAKULAM DATED 31-092019** - **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE DIARY NO. 4/2011 DATED 9-03-2011** - **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT DATED 9-3-2011** - **ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE MAHAZAR WITNESSES NAMELY MR. UNNIKRISHNAN PUTHUKULANGARA DATED 09-03-2011** - **ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE MAHAZAR WITNESS NAMELY MR. SOMAN P DATED 9-3-2011** - **ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT DATED NIL.** - **ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO ANNEXURE A5 CHARGE MEMO DATED NIL.** - **ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 20-09-2009 IN CRL. M.C NO. 1950/2006.** // true copy // P.A to Judge