P. M. Senan and S. Seetha v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 2ND VAISAKHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 10955 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** 1 P.M.SENAN AGED 75 YEARS S/O.S.MADHAVA PANICKER, MIDHILA, MEC ROAD, THRIKKAKKARA.P.O, KOCHI, PIN-682021 2 S.SEETHA AGED 64 YEARS W/O.P.M.SENA, MIDHILA, MEC ROAD, THRIKAKKARA.P.O, KOCHI, PIN-682021 BY ADVS. P.G.JAYASHANKAR KUM.P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL) SMT.REVATHY P. MANOHARAN SMT.STEFIN THOMAS SMT.AMRITHA SUBIN SHRI SANIN V.U. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695001 2 STATE POLICE CHIEF AND THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695010 WP(C) No.10955/2020 -:2:- - 3 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR RANGE IG OFFICE, VELIYANNUR, THRISSUR, KERALA-680001 - 4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE THRISSUR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OFFICE, CRIME BRANCH, THRISSUR-680001 - 5 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, OLLUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR, KERALA-680306 - 6 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, PATTALAM RD, SAKTHAN THAMPURAM NAGAR, VELIYANNUR, THRISSUR, KERALA680001 - 7 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION PLOT NO.5-B 6TH FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM MARG, NEW DELHI, DELHI110003, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR BY ADVS. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANU S., ASG OF INDIA ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI SUVIN R MENON -CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 5.04.2022, THE COURT ON 22.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No.10955/2020 -:3:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 22[nd ] day of April, 2022 The distressed parents of a 32-year-old girl who was found dead by hanging at her husband's house are the petitioners. 2. Dr.Aswathy, the daughter of the petitioners, married one Mr.K.N.Naveen on 04/09/2008. They were college mates at the Cochin University for Science and Technology. Though they knew each other during their college days, their marriage was an arranged one. After completing B.Tech, Aswathy obtained her Ph.D from IIT, Chennai and Naveen took up employment at a private company in Kuwait. Later Aswathy joined her husband in Kuwait. A daughter was born in their wedlock. Both Naveen and Aswathy along with their 4-year-old daughter came from Kuwait on leave to Naveen's house on 24/7/2013, just two weeks prior to the incident. Both slept in a room on the first floor in the previous night of the incident. Aswathy was found dead hanging in the adjacent room on the fateful night intervening 06/08/2013 and 07/08/2013. WP(C) No.10955/2020 -:4:- 3. A crime was registered by the Town East Police Station Thrissur as Crime No.1797/2013 for unnatural death u/s 174 of Cr.P.C based on the statement given by the first petitioner. Initially, the investigation was conducted by the then SHO, Town East Police Station, Thrissur who is the 6[th] respondent. Investigation revealed that Aswathy and Naveen slept in a room on the first floor on the previous night of the incident (7/8/2013) and when Naveen woke up at around 3.20 a.m, as they were planning to go for 'Nalambala Dharasan' on that day, Aswathy was not there in the room. Then he saw that the room adjacent to it was locked from inside and he knocked on the room but there was no response. On the assumption that Aswathy was taking her bath, he came back to his room for getting ready. Since there was no response from the room even after his bath, he gazed into the room through the window from the sunshade and saw Aswathy hanging in the fan. He then broke the wooden pane of the door and slid into the room through the gap and unfastened the knot on her neck. In the meantime, he cried loudly and his mother came into the room. A doctor residing nearby confirmed her death and so they did not take her to the WP(C) No.10955/2020 ## -:5:- hospital. 4. The investigation conducted by the 6[th] respondent did not reveal any dispute between the parents of Naveen and Aswathy. There were no allegations of mental or physical torture as well. In fact, initially, the petitioners also did not have any suspicion that it was not a case of suicide. 5. After investigation, the final report was submitted as 'suicide by hanging' before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Thrissur on 30/10/2013. 6. After filing of the final report by the 6[th] respondent, a letter from one Mr Raveendran, introducing himself as a thief belonging to Bharanikavu, Kollam, was received by the State Police Chief alleging that the death of the deceased was not a suicide, but a murder committed by her husband. He claimed that he saw the incident while he was hiding in the 'parapet' of the second floor near the window of the room, where the occurrence has happened, for committing theft and he witnessed the murder through the window which he partially opened for observing the room and he is ready to reveal the incident before the police. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Police Chief, the WP(C) No.10955/2020 ## -:6:- case was reopened and investigated by the then Circle Inspector of Police, Thrissur Town East and by his successors. In spite of the exhaustive investigation, the author of the letter could not be traced and hence the investigating officer arrived at a conclusion that the letter was drafted by someone who had a personal interest to implicate the husband of the deceased in the case. 7. After two years of the incident, i.e., on 7/8/2015, the 1[st] petitioner lodged a complaint (Ext.P2) before the State Police Chief raising suspicion about the death of his daughter. On the basis of the said letter, the State Police Chief ordered to transfer the case to CBCID for further investigation. Accordingly, the investigation was taken over by the CBCID on 1/9/2015 and conducted further investigation. After investigation, it was found that the death of late Dr. Aswathy was suicide by hanging and hence there was no substance in the contentions raised by the father of Aswathy that his daughter was murdered by the husband Naveen along with his parents and employee Jose. Accordingly, refer report was filed. 8. According to the petitioners, no effective investigation WP(C) No.10955/2020 -:7:- has been undertaken and conducted by the investigating agency to find out the truth of the unnatural death of their daughter. They asserted that it is not a case of suicide, but a case of homicide. They suspect that the husband of the deceased with the aid of his father and his employee Mr. Jose committed the murder of their daughter. It is their case that the investigating agency has conducted the investigation in an arbitrary manner. It is in these circumstances they approached this Court with a prayer to entrust the investigation to the CBI who is the 7[th] respondent. 9. I have heard Sri. P.G. Jayashankar, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri. Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri. Suvin R. Menon, the learned Central Government Counsel for CBI/7[th] respondent. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.P.G.Jayashankar submitted that the initial investigation was conducted in a shabby manner and various material facts to rule out suicide and to suggest that it was a case of homicide were not adverted to by the investigating agency. According to the learned counsel, the subsequent investigation conducted by the WP(C) No.10955/2020 ## -:8:- CBCID was just a face-saving measure and they merely confirmed the findings of the earlier investigating agency. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor Sri.Sangeetha Raj submitted that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners is on the basis of mere surmises and the thorough investigation conducted by the local police as well as CBCID thereafter confirmed that it was a case of suicide. It was pointed out that the investigation was carried out under the direct supervision of the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch Thrissur and he issued directions and instructions after the investigation periodically and no other conclusion could be reached by even the Crime Branch. It was further submitted that the investigation conducted was a foolproof one and the conclusion was based on medical and scientific evidence. According to the Public Prosecutor, even the polygraph test of the suspect/husband of the deceased was undertaken. There is no need for any further investigation at all, added the Prosecutor. The learned Central Government Counsel for CBI Sri.Suvin R. Menon submitted that no exceptional circumstances have been canvassed to entrust the investigation with the CBI, that too after the lapse of 9 years from the date of the incident. It is submitted WP(C) No.10955/2020 ## -:9:- that since the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the long lapse of time would have wiped off all the circumstances. He further submitted that ordering an investigation in a case of this nature by the CBI is unwarranted. 11. Here is a case where aggrieved by the inaction and inertia on the part of the investigating officer, the first petitioner preferred Ext.P2 complaint in person before the 2[nd] respondent specifically pointing out the laches committed by the investigating officers. A perusal of Ext.P2 would show that it contained specific points clearly pointing out the laches and illegalities contained in the investigation done by the 6[th] respondent. To Ext.P2 complaint, the 3[rd] respondent’s office gave Ext.P3 reply to the first petitioner. In the said reply, the petitioners were informed that the departmental action has been initiated against the investigating officer who conducted the preliminary enquiry which suggests that the allegations levelled against the investigation were true. Thereafter the first petitioner was informed as per Ext.P4 letter that after due inquiries pursuant to Ext.P2 complaint, it was thought fit to entrust the investigation to an officer holding the rank of Dy.S.P. However, WP(C) No.10955/2020 -:10:- the investigation was conducted by the 5[th] respondent who is in the rank of Circle Inspector. Refer report was filed within less than three months of Ext.P4. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out several other doubtful circumstances to highlight his version that true facts were not unearthed by the investigating agency. After perusing the specific instances pointed out in Ext.P2 complaint and the refer report, I am of the view that the grievance exposed by the petitioners is well-founded. A perusal of Ext.P2 along with the documents attached thereto also points out the fact that the state missionary itself has admitted the defect in the investigation and anomalies which had undermined the investigation process. At the same time, it does not appear to me that it is not one of those cases where this court will be justified in ordering reinvestigation by the CBI. It is trite that reinvestigation/further investigation should be directed by superior courts sparingly, only in exceptional cases where investigation already conducted is so unfair, tainted, _malafide_ and in violation of settled principles of investigative canons that it pricks the judicial conscience of the courts [See _**Vinay Tyagi v.**_ WP(C) No.10955/2020 -:11:- _**Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others**_ (2013) 5 SCC 762]. Certainly, this is not such a case. However, considering the grievances expounded by the petitioners and the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the superior officer to verify the final reports already submitted and to consider whether further investigation is required or not. In the light of the above findings, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: An officer in the rank of ADGP shall verify the final report already submitted meticulously taking into account the grievances raised by the petitioners in Ext.P2 complaint. If on such verification, the officer finds that anything more is to be investigated, it shall be done in accordance with the law. ## **Sd/-** ## **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** ## **JUDGE** **Rp** WP(C) No.10955/2020 ## -:12:- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10955/2020** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR BEARING|CRIME| |---|---|---| ||NO.1797 OF 2013 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE|| ||STATION|| |EXHIBIT P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT|DATED| ||07.08.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE|1ST| ||PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT|| |EXHIBIT P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY|DATED| ||10.05.2019 OBTAINED BY THE|1ST| ||PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD|| ||RESPONDENT|| |EXHIBIT P3(A)|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY|THE| ||ADDITIONAL DGP ADDRESSED TO THE DGP|| |EXHIBIT P3(B)|A<br>TRUE<br>COPY<br>OF<br>THE|ORDER| ||NO.A2/PR/01/2017/TSR ISSUED BY|THE| ||INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR|| ||RANGE|| |EXHIBIT P3(C)|A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES|| ||ISSUED NO MR.P.LALKUMAR|| |EXHIBIT P3(D)|A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE|| ||ISSUED TO MR.P.LALKUMAR|| |EXHIBIT P3(E)|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY|| ||SRI.P.LALKUMAR|| |EXHIBIT P3(F)|A<br>TRUE<br>COPY<br>OF|ORDER| ||NO.A2/PR/01/2017/TSR ISSUED BY|THE| ||INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR|| ||RANGE|| WP(C) No.10955/2020 -:13:- EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.07/PTN/SB/RC/2020 DATED 05.02.2020 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.04.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT