This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking direction in respect of investigation in Crime No.302/2012 of Puthenkurizu Police Station to the investigating officer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is the unfortunate father of a son Sajith Kumar, who died in an accident. According to the petitioner, he has got suspicion regarding the incident. On the basis of the statement of the defacto-complainant, crime No.302/2012 of Putherkuriz police station was registered as motor occurrence. As per order of this court in W.P.(C).No.1951/2013, dated 10.03.2013, the investigation of the case was handed over to 6th respondent from 3rd respondent and also 5th respondent was directed to supervise the investigation effectively and expeditiously and file a final report before the competent court. But even after year of the judgment, no progress in the investigation and no serious efforts have been taken on the part of the investigation officer to complete the investigation and file the report. Though the incident happened on 05.08.2012 at 11.30 p.m., but it was informed to the police only on 07.08.2012 at 10.30 p.m,. The cause of injury and also the incident explained were not trustworthy according to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the incident could not have happened as stated in the first information report. So the petitioner has no other remedy, except to approach this court, seeking the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the 2nd respondent to hand over the investigation in Crime No.302/2012 of Puthenkurizu police station to the Crime Branch.
ii. Direct the respondents 5 and 6 to submit a report before this honourable court explaining the status and progress of the investigation in Crime No.302/2012 of Puthenkurizu police station.
iii. Grant such other relief that may pray for at the time of hearing.
2. On the basis of the directions given by this court, the investigation officer submitted a statement before this court, which reads as follows:
“It is submitted that as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 10.03.2013 in W.P.C. No.1951 of 2013, 6th respondent took over the investigation of crime No.302/12 of Puthencruz police station 01.07.2013. I conducted a thorough investigation – in this crime case and now the investigation is in the last phase. During the investigation, I investigated about the suspicion arised by the complainant, the father of the deceased in this case thoroughly.
2. With regard to allegation in para 3 of the writ petition, it is submitted that as per the version of complainant, when he reached at the hospital, where the complainant’s son was admitted, the persons travelled with the deceased told to the complainant that accident was occurred by car hit on a tree and complainant allege that those persons then changed their words, as the car hit in a container lorry. As per the investigation, this allegation is baseless. Because at the time of admission at hospital after injury, they told to the doctor as the accident was due to their car hit on a unknown vehicle – lorry. It is recorded in the wound certificate of the deceased, which prepared on 06.08.12 at 12.25 AM. The injury of one Anil was on his left hand and even though the injury was not so serious to affected his life but need special treatment such as, plastic surgery, so the patient brought to specialist Hospital, Ernakulam.
3. On 07.08.12 at 10.30 PM, an Fir was registered as Cr.No.302/12 u/c. Motor occurrence at Puthercruz police station, as per the statement given by one Sonu, S/o. Somarajan, age 22/12, Kunnel House, Thazhauvankunnu. Sonu was deceased’s friend and he was in the car at the time of accident. During the investigation, the investigation officer altered u/s Motor occurrence into 279, 337, 304 (A) IPC.
4. As per the FIS, only 5 persons were at the car during accident and deceased Sajithkumar was sitting in back seat with sonu and Akhil . But during the course of investigation, it is revealed that actually there were 7 persons in the Indica Car, that means Arun drove the car, Anil in the middle (front seat) and the deceased Sajith was at left side (dear door) and other 4 persons were at back seat. During the time of accident, Anil who sitting in middle of front seat extended his left side of the car. Due to this both Sajith’s head Anils’s hand got injury as a part of accident of the car with lorry.
5. In FI statement, the informant says that his car hit on the left back side of the lorry. But on the investigation, it is revealed that the left side of the car bearing Reg.No.KL-17 H/7709 hit on the right side of the lorry which was parked on the left side of the NH road, which is clear in Mahazar prepared by investigation officer and report of inspection of both vehicles prepared by Motor Vehicle Inspector, Perumbavoor. Right side of the lorry is scratched and rear view mirror left side broken, rear left door and beeding, left side panal etc are damaged as per the vehicle inspection report given by Motor Vehicle Inspector. In petition given by Sri.Sankar, he stated that accident occur at 05.08.12 at 11.30 PM and the injured hospitalised at 2.14 AM, after three hours. It is absolutely a false allegation. On investigation, the accident occurred at 12 night and both injured were hospitalised at 12.25 AM. The time is mentioned in wound certificate of MOSC Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry. No delay found occurred for the hospitalisation of wounded persons after the accident. There are 9 KM from the place of occurrence to the medical college, Kolencherry. Actually the car is hit with its left side to the right side of the lorry which parked on the left side of the road. No information received so far about the story of the car hit on a tree situated at road side.
6. It is submitted that this allegation in para 6 of W.P.C is baseless. Because inquest of the deceased person conducted at 12.15 Pm on 08.08.12 at Medical College Hospital, Mortuary, Kolencherry and the inquest was conducted by S.I Sri.P.R.Sunu, S.I of Police, Puthencruz and inquest report submitted before the JFCM Court, Kolencheerry. During the time of inquest, the complainant in the W.P.C questioned and his statement is recorded under the head of 9th question of inquest questionnaire. Post mortem report said that injury was at the left parietal area and severe injury in the back side of the head is not mentioned in the post mortem certificate. The statement of doctor, who conducted the autopsy states that small coin sized hole is found on the left parietal region (Burr hole) during opening of the sutured injury on head during the time of autopsy. He opined that such coin sized wound on the skull can be occurred in motor accident. On questioning the doctor who conducted treatment of the deceased states that the condition of the patient was very critical and no surgery conducted on patient. He said that there was a left parietal bone fracture with underlying pneumocephalus. Such coin sized fracture can be occurred in motor accident cases.
7. As per the investigation conducted so far, the deceased and other 6 other persons were friends and all of them are residing at Kalloorkkadu Village, out of the six persons two persons are involved in hurt cases. The investigation conducted so far, the statement of witnesses, statement of medical and motor vehicle experts proves that the death of the complainant’s son was due to motor accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the car driver Arun. On investigation it is revealed that all the person in the car including the accused Arun and the deceased were in drunken status. The allegation raised by the complainant in W.P.C is false.
8. The 6th respondent conducting the investigation as per the direction of the Hon’ble Court in true letter and spirit and the investigation of the case is pending for questioning one witness, the driver of Reg.No.TM AD/9470 Lorry and he is an important witness to be questioned. The former investigation officer, Sri.P.R.Sunu, Sub Inspector of Police, already questioned that witness. The witness is a driver of National Permit lorry and he is residing at Chennai, Tamilnadu state and most of the time he is in out of station. The investigation completed only after questioning of the witness.
9. The investigation conducted so far, nothing found suspicious in the case of death of the complainant’s son Sajithkumar as alleged by the complainant. The 6th respondent, who conducted the investigation all the areas, where the complainant arises the allegation. I humbly request to the Hon’ble High Court to kindly be grant some more time to complete the investigation.
3. When the case come up for hearing today, the learned Government Pleader submitted that, only one witness, who is the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident has to be questioned and since he is a driver engaged in national permit vehicles, his presence could not be procured and efforts will be taken to procure his presence and the investigation will be completed at any rate within two months time. When this was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above submission of the learned Government Pleader may be recorded and the petition may be closed. So the above submission of the learned Government Pleader that the investigation will be expedited and efforts will be taken to complete the investigation within two months is recored and the petition is disposed of accordingly with liberty for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, if he is not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss