Omana v. State of Kerala and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 / 7TH ASWINA, 1930 **WP(C).No. 27056 of 2007 (U)** PETITIONER: - --------------- OMANA, W/O.LATE JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, PONNAMPURACKAL HOUSE, KADATHY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: - ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. JOSE K.VARGHESE, KORUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PALACHUVADU BUS STOP, NELLAD P.O., MUDAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 5. JOY, S/O.VARGHESE, KORUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PALACHUVADU BUS STOP, NELLAD P.O., MUDAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.L.LAKSHMI RANI, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## APPENDIX ## (WP(C) No. 27056 OF 2007) ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ## Ext.P1: Copy of the post-mortem report. Ext.P2: Copy of the petition submitted before the third respondent dtd.27.3.2007. Ext.P3: Copy of the petition submitted before the 2nd respondent dtd. 17.4.2007. -True Copy- P.A.to Judge. **V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 27056 of 2007 - U --------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of September, 2008** ## **J U D G M E N T** This writ petition is preferred by one Omana, aged 50 years, who is a widow and the mother of deceased Swapna. The prayer in this writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 and 2 to entrust the investigation with any other agency preferably Crime Branch to have an effective investigation into the cause of death of the daughter of the petitioner. It is also prayed for a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to register a case against respondents 4 and 5 with regard to the murder of Swapna and investigate the same without any further delay. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her daughter was married to the fourth respondent on 28.11.1999 and thereafter, they were staying together in the house of the fourth respondent at Nellad and out of the said wedlock, two children were born to them. The elder son is aged 6 years and the other is a girl aged 4½ years. Swapna died **WP(C) NO.27056 of 2007** ## **:-2-:** on 20.03.2007. According to the Police, the cause of death is suicide by hanging. The petitioner is not prepared to accept the above story of the Police. According to her, the relationship between the deceased and the fourth respondent became strained and such circumstances and the points raised in this writ petition indicate that it is not a case of suicide, but homicide. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perumbavoor filed a statement dated 22.10.2007 in which he had narrated the details of investigation undertaken by the Police and also the conclusion arrived on by the Police after an elaborate investigation. According to the said statement, the fourth respondent was having the habit of consuming alcohol excessively and he used to come home at late night after consuming alcohol and there were several occasions during which the fourth respondent and deceased Swapna had quarrel and the fourth respondent also used to beat her while exchanging angry words. Regarding this aspect, the deceased was making complaint to her brother in law ## **WP(C) NO.27056 of 2007** ## **:-3-:** and the wife. It is also stated that the fourth respondent and deceased Swapna had decided to consult counsilor in de addiction center on 21.3.2007 and on 20.3.2007 also, Swapna was waiting her husband Jose eagerly and when she contacted him over phone in late night, she came to know that her husband is at Moovattupuzha, a far away place with his friends and consuming alcohol. According to the Police, that may be one of the reasons for immediate depression and resulted in hanging. The petitioner is dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the Police and she is very much aggrieved as there was no satisfactory explanation about the 16 points which she mentioned in this writ petition. It is, in the above background, she preferred this writ petition with the above prayers. 4. I have heard Mr.Raju Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor made available to me the C.D. in Crime No.85 of 2007 of Kunnathunadu ## **WP(C) NO.27056 of 2007** ## **:-4-:** Police Station. The case which was originally registered under the caption 'Unnatural death' and subsequently, the section was altered to Section 498A of the I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement filed by the Police or the submission made by the Public Prosecutor are not sufficient to clear the doubt and apprehension of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, still there are circumstances which need further examination and come to a conclusion as to whether it is a suicide or murder. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor took me through the C.D.files and narrated the steps and investigation undertaken by the Police and she had particularly referred to the statements of various witnesses questioned by the Police. She had also invited my attention to the statement of the Doctor who conducted the autopsy. In his statement, the Doctor had opined that the death was due to hanging which ruled out the case of homicide. I have also perused the postmortem certificate and also the statements of **WP(C) NO.27056 of 2007** ## **:-5-:** various witnesses questioned by the Police. 7. The petitioner before this Court is an aged mother of the deceased and she is also a widow. She is deeply concerned with the sad demise of her daughter and being the mother of the deceased, her grievance is to find out whether the death was due to suicide or homicide. During the hearing of the matter, rival contentions were advanced and the materials are also made available to me for my perusal. Still, I am not proposed to enter into any finding on merit regarding those contentions. 8. This Court cannot ignore and shut out the eyes against the weeping face of an affectionate mother who is more concerned with the sad demise of her beloved daughter. Considering the grievances of the petitioner who is a widow and unlucky mother of the deceased, as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to her satisfaction, this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to look into the matter on the basis of Ext.P3 petition. **WP(C) NO.27056 of 2007** ## **:-6-:** 9. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to look into Ext.P3 petition, examine the correctness of the investigation and conclusion arrived on by the third respondent and dispose of Ext.P3 before filing of the final report in Crime No.85 of 2007 of Kunnanthunadu Police Station and to expedite the same as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioner has any grievance after such disposal of Ext.P3, she can approach the concerned court as observed by the Apex Court in the decision reported in **Sakiri Vasu** v. **State of U.P.** [2008(1) KLT 724 (SC)]. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this writ petition as well as a copy of this judgment before the second respondent for information and compliance. **V.K.Mohanan, Judge** MBS/ ## **WP(C) NO.27056 of 2007** **:-7-:** **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------Crl.A.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------------- **WP(C) NO.27056 of 2007** ## **:-8-:** O R D E R DATED: -9-2008 ## **WP(C) NO.27056 of 2007** **:-9-:**