K.M. Madhavankutty v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1944** ## **WP(CRL.) NO. 544 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.M.MADHAVANKUTTY AGED 64 YEARS, S/O KUTTAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT M.S. BHAVAN, KALLAYAM, TRIVANDRUM-695053.** **BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR SMT.CHRISTEENA P. GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, TRIVANDRUM-695001.** **2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695010.** - **3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, S.P OFFICE, THYCAUD, THYCAUD P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695014.** - **4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHENCODE CIRCLE OFFICE, POTHENCODE P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695584.** - **5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VATTAPPARA POLICE STATION, VATTAPPARA P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695028.** W.P.(Crl.) No.544/22 **-:** 2 **:-** **6 THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, PLOT NO. 5-B, CGO COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110003, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **BY ADV MANU S., DSGI OF INDIA** **BY SMT.SREEJA V, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2023, THE COURT ON 15.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(Crl.) No.544/22 **-:** 3 **:-** ## **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------W.P.(Crl.) No.544 of 2022 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 15[th] day of March, 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner seeks for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over investigation into Crime No.736 of 2011 of Vattapara Police Station. 2. On 24.10.2011, petitioner’s son was found hanging inside the bedroom of his house. On being brought to the hospital, he was declared dead on the basis of which the aforementioned crime was registered under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'). Though the investigation by the local police concluded that the incident was a case of suicide, petitioner approached this court in W.P.(C) No.11776 of 2018 pointing out certain discrepancies in the investigation and seeking an investigation by a superior body. By judgment dated 06.03.2019, this Court directed the Crime Branch to take over the investigation into the crime. W.P.(Crl.) No.544/22 **-:** 4 **:-** 3. Pursuant to a detailed investigation by the Crime Branch, they also came to the conclusion that the death of petitioner's son was due to suicide. Concurring with the findings of the local police, the Crime Branch was of the opinion that the death of petitioner's son was due to hanging. Thus, even after an investigation by the Crime Branch, the conclusion remained the same. It is in such circumstances that petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI') to take over the investigation. 4. It is settled proposition of law that resort to investigation by the CBI must be made only in exceptional circumstances. In the decision in **Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India and Others** [(2020) 14 SCC 12] the Supreme Court had recently reiterated the aforesaid proposition. 5. In order to ascertain the justifiability of the claim for referring the matter to the CBI for investigation, this Court called for the case diary and have perused it meticulously. 6. Initially when the investigating officer wanted to reconfirm the conclusion arrived at, the witnesses were questioned again and thereafter also came to the conclusion that the deceased had ## W.P.(Crl.) No.544/22 **-:** 5 **:-** committed suicide. The Crime Branch also conducted an independent investigation and came to the same conclusion. 7. Sri.Santhan V. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the investigation of the Crime Branch was not proper and that they failed to appreciate the various crucial circumstances that point to the possibility of the case being a homicide and not a suicide. The absence of a proper ligature-mark on the neck and absence of asphyxia, which are alleged as common features in cases of suicide by hanging and above all, the existence of certain matrimonial issues are stated as creating doubts on the cause of death and consequently on the nature of investigation. According to the learned counsel, only if a proper investigation is ordered, that too by a central investigation agency, would the truth be revealed. It is alleged that the strong wooden door was seen as broken into two pieces, a polyester dhoti was seen hanging from the fan, the computer mouse and wire were missing from the room, and many items including dresses were seen scattered in the room, apart from the muscles of the neck remaining intact and absence of injuries to the neck, all of which suggested some foul play. 8. I have heard the contentions of the learned Public W.P.(Crl.) No.544/22 **-:** 6 **:-** Prosecutor also. 9. A reading of the post-mortem certificate reveals that there was a pressure abrasion of 18 cm long oblique on front and right side of neck above the level of thyroid cartilage with a discontinuity of 22 cms on back and the left side of the neck. There were three other injuries on the body, including an abrasion of 0.8x0.5 cm on the front of the right arm, 18 cms below top of shoulder, an abrasion of 1x1 cm on the front of right knee and an abrasion of 1x0.5 cm on the front of left arm 5 cm below the elbow. The injuries noted above except for the initial one, are all stated by the Doctor to be minor injuries which cannot be attributed to any serious assault or force having been used. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had asserted that the hyoid bone and the thyroid cartilage and other neck structures were intact, the Doctor had, in his statement explained that, in all suicidal hangings, it is not necessary that the hyoid bone must break and further that if the body is immediately brought down from the hanging position, it is possible that the bones of the neck may remain intact. The Doctor had also opined that the abrasions on the body of the deceased were caused due to normal circumstances while hanging and that his opinion was that the death was due to ## W.P.(Crl.) No.544/22 **-:** 7 **:-** hanging itself. It was further opined by the Doctor that the ligaturemark visible on the body could be caused due to a Mundu and cannot be attributed to that caused by the wire of a computer mouse. 10. Apart from the above, it is noticed from the case diary that several witnesses were questioned by the investigating officers and there was no cause to doubt any other reason for the death of the deceased. The suspicions raised by the petitioner are all without any basis. The allegation of suffocating the deceased to death and thereafter hanging the body to create an instance of suicide is also a figment of imagination of the petitioner. The investigation has not brought out any reason for such assumptions and despite questioning the witnesses and a thorough search of the premises, no visible signs of any force or assault were evident. The same was also not evident from the post-mortem report and the statement of the Doctor. Further, the strength of the door and the manner in which it was broken or the scattering of dresses are all mere doubts. In such circumstances, the allegation of the petitioner that his son was murdered by some persons is only a doubt without any basis. 11. Merely because after the death of petitioner's son, his wife re-married, and certain issues had crept up in the second marriage W.P.(Crl.) No.544/22 **-:** 8 **:-** and that the second husband had slit her two hands suspecting her chastity are not reasons to doubt the cause of death of the petitioner's son. 12. In the decision in **Arnab Ranjan Goswami's case** (supra) Supreme Court had held that exceptional reasons must exist to order investigation by the CBI. Similarly, in the decision in **State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others** [(2010) 3 SCC 571] and in the recent decision in **Himanshu Kumar and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others** (2022 SCC OnLine SC 884), it was held that CBI enquiry could be ordered only in rare and exceptional circumstances. I am satisfied that no such instance exists in the present case. The writ petition is therefore devoid of any merit and is hence dismissed. Sd/- ## **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE** vps ## W.P.(Crl.) No.544/22 **-:** 9 **:-** ||**APPENDIX**| |---|---| |**EXT.P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.736/2011**| ||**DATED 25.10.2011 OF VATTAPPARA POLICE STATION**| |**EXT.P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INQUEST REPORT DATED 25.10.2011**| ||**IN EXT.P1 FIR**| |**EXT.P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE POST MORTEM CERTIFICATE**| ||**NO.PM.2748/2011 DATED 25.10.2011 OF DECEASED**| ||**KISHORE KUMAR**| |**EXT.P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHUMI NEWSPAPER TRIVANDRUM**| ||**EDITION, NATTUVARTHAMANAM PAGE NO.2 DATED**| ||**05.6.2014**| |**EXT.P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.29227/2017/PHQ DATED**| ||**22.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS**| ||**TRIVANDRUM EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT OF THE**| ||**PETITIONER**| |**EXT.P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.2.2017 ISSUED**| ||**FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER EVIDENCING**| ||**RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER**| |**EXT.P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.7.2017 FILED**| ||**BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER,**| ||**GOVERNMENT OF KERALA**| |**EXT.P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.9.2017 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE**| ||**POLICE DEPARTMENT NO. HOME.D1/282/2017-HOME**| |**EXT.P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE**| ||**DATED 25.9.2017 ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT DATED**| ||**25.9.2017**| |**EXT.P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 4.12.2017**| ||**EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF PETITION NO.60774/2017/T**| ||**ISSUED FROM DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE**| W.P.(Crl.) No.544/22 ## **-:** 10 **:-** **EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 8.1.2017 BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT DATED 08.1.2018 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.3.2019 PASSED IN WPC NO.11776/2018 EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF A LETTER DATED 17.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (HOME DEPARTMENT) ALONG WITH ATTACHED DOCUMENTS**