T.A. Abraham v. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram; Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta; Circle Inspector of Police, Kozhencherry; Sub Inspector of Police, Kozhipuram Police Station

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL** **THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 14TH MAGHA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 15714 OF 2014** ## **WRIT PETITIONER:** **T.A.ABRAHAM AGED 80 YEARS S/O.LATE T.E.ABRAHAM, THANNICKAL HOUSE, KURIYANOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, 689550.** **BY ADVS.SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SRI.JAYKAR.K.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695001.** - **2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA 689645.** - **3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689645.** - **4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOZHIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689645.** WP(C) NO. 15714 OF 2014 2 **BY SRI. VIPIN NARAYANAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2022, THE COURT ON 03.02.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO. 15714 OF 2014 3 ## **JUDGMENT** An octogenarian father has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for unravelling the mystery of death of his son Babu Sathya Prakash whose body was found floating in a Pamba Irrigation Project canal about 4 km away from his place of residence, in the morning of 04.04.2014. In the previous evening, the said Babu Sathya Prakash had gone out holding a torch with him. But he did not return; at last, his father had the ill fate of identifying his body in the mortuary of the hospital on the following day. From that day onwards, the father is after authorities seeking proper investigation for unravelling the mystery in the cause of death. 2. The police had registered Crime No. 327/2014 in Koipuram police station which is the jurisdictional police station, under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code WP(C) NO. 15714 OF 2014 4 and after investigation, came to the conclusion that the death was due to drowning. But the father had reasons to doubt various suspicious circumstances and that prompted him to approach this Court seeking a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to the first respondent to issue a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to conduct a proper investigation, to issue a writ of mandamus or any other direction to the 2[nd] respondent to monitor the investigation in Crime No. 327/2014 of Koipuram police station and to issue a writ of mandamus to the 2[nd] respondent to entrust the investigation by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of the police. 3. It is true that on 04.04.2014, the body of Babu Sathya Prakash was found floating in the Pamba Irrigation Project Canal, at Mangattupadi, 4 kms away from the place of residence of the petitioner. The age old parents and the said the Babu were living in their house. He had an estranged WP(C) NO. 15714 OF 2014 5 relationship with his wife and daughter, who were in Mumbai. Earlier two statements were filed by the Investigating Officer as directed by this court. By order dated 07.12.2021, after considering the entire aspects, this court noticed three discrepancies in the investigation. Firstly, the SIM card allegedly used by the said Babu Sathya Prakash was later found activated on 10.06.2015, much after his death. The police had not gone into the question as to how such a SIM card was found used by somebody especially in the light of the fact that the mobile phone, the spectacles and the lungi of the deceased could not yet been traced. Secondly, the brother-in-law of the deceased who was not in good terms with him was not questioned. In the earlier statement filed by the Investigating Officer, it was stated that he is about to proceed to Mumbai and offered to give a further statement to this Court, but no such statement was forthcoming. Thirdly, the ante-mortem injuries found on the WP(C) NO. 15714 OF 2014 6 face and other parts of the body of the deceased also were not properly investigated and therefore, a statement was directed to be filed by the Investigating Officer under the supervision of the 2[nd] respondent before this court. 4. Now a further statement has been filed by the present Investigating Officer. According to him, the said Babu Sathya Prakash was a drunkard and also was partially paralysed. He had no enemies and had only few friends. It was an accidental death. The postmortem examination revealed that death was due to drowning. At the same time, there was no symptom of alcohol or poisoning in the body of the person and the death was due to drowning. But we cannot forget the fact, at the place where the body was found, depth of water was only at one meter height. Therefore, in all probability it is not possible, a person dying in a canal where the depth of the water is only one meter by drowning. This has to be considered along with the ante-mortem injuries WP(C) NO. 15714 OF 2014 7 found on the body of the person. There are reasons to believe that this aspect has not been properly gone into by the Investigating Officer. 5. Secondly, it is true that the SIM card was later found activated on 10.06.2014. According to the Investigating Officer, he had made enquiries into this aspect; the SIM card actually belonged to one Mohan Thomas who had given it to the deceased and after the death of the deceased he had taken a duplicate SIM card and that was how he started using it, after the death of Babu Sathya Prakash. It is further stated that the IMEI number of the phone used by Babu Sathya Prakash was traced from the Cyber Cell and request was sent out for tracing whether anyone is using the mobile phone after his death. But, no evidence could be traced. That aspect can be accepted. 6. But, the police has not made any further step for questioning the brother-in-law of the deceased, who was not WP(C) NO. 15714 OF 2014 8 in good terms with the deceased at the time of his death. In the earlier statement, even though it was stated that he is proceeding to Mumbai for questioning Johnson, brother-inlaw, no further step has been taken for the same. Now the Investigating Officer has stated that the said Johnson had sold all his assets in Kattoor in Cherukol and settled in Mumbai in 2012. That means, the investigation on that area has been stopped abruptly and even though it was offered that the said brother-in-law would be questioned by the police. 7. Thus, there is substance in the argument of the petitioner that the police was not earnest in making head way into such aspects. The age old parents may be having false motions or suspicion with regard to the alleged role played by the brother-in-law. From the earlier report, it is certain that the Investigating Officer wanted to examine him. But at least for making others believe, investigation should have been WP(C) NO. 15714 OF 2014 9 conducted and it is not known as to why the brother-in-law was not questioned, even though it was offered that he would be questioned. That would show the lack of earnestness shown by the Investigating Officer. 8. Justice not only has to be done but also must appear to have been done. If the investigating agency was not effectively discharging the duties, residuary jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked to do further investigation in matter. (See the decision in **Pooja Pal v. Union of India and Others [AIR 2016 SC 1345]** ). The most disturbing aspect is that even in the order dated 07.12.2021, this Court had highlighted that the Investigating Officer did not question the brother-in-law of the deceased. In the present report also, it is only stated that the brother-in-law had shifted from Kattoor in 2012 itself and settled down in Mumbai. That does not mean that he cannot play any role in the alleged mischief, if any, through anyone else. Such aspects, at least the WP(C) NO. 15714 OF 2014 10 whereabouts of the said person at the time when Babu Sathya Prakash had died should have been probed into. 9. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to entrust investigation to an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of police and to complete the investigation and lay the final report, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. SD/- **K.HARIPAL JUDGE** **DCS/02/02/2022** WP(C) NO. 15714 OF 2014 11 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 9/4/14 SUBMITTED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 9/4/14 SUBMITTED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.327/14 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE INQUEST REPORT IN CRIME NO.327/14 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE POST MORTEM CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6/5/14 SUBMITTED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**