------------- This is an application filed by the injured seeking intervention by this Court for proper investigation in respect of Crime No.790/2010 of Vadakancherry police station under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
2. It was alleged in the petition is that from 2007 onwards, the family relationship between the petitioner and his wife estranged and they were living separately and he was getting frequent threatening letters. Though he is residing in Chennai, he was not able to come to his native place on account of the threatening letters which he is receiving on and often. On 24.8.2010, when he came to his native place and returning home, after attending a function, during midnight, he was brutally attacked by a group of people and on the basis of the statement given by one of his relatives, Crime No.790 of 2010 was registered by Vadakkancherry police and investigation is being conducted by them. But so far no effective steps have been taken by the police to find out the real culprits and arrest them. Even now, he is getting anonymous threatening calls and letters which is being informed to the police but no effective action has been taken by the police in this regard. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
i) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or driection directing the 3rd respondent herein to take over the investigation from the 5th respondent and appoint an officer not below the Rank of Superintendent of Police from outside the District of the crime occured and complete the investigation within time limit.
ii) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to make timely supervision on the investigation.
iii) a writ, or apporpaite direction directing the 3rd respondent to direct the investigating officer appointeed to add offences 307 and 120B of IPC against the accused and re-conduct an impartial investigation.
3. On the basis of the allegations made, a statement was called for from the fifth respondent regarding the manner in which the investigation was conducted and he filed a statement which reads as follows:-
1. The above writ petition is filed praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to take over the investigation from the 5th respondent and to appoint an officer not below the Rank of Superintendent of Police from the outside District wherein of the crime occurred and to complete the investigaiton within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and further to direct the 3rd respondent to direct the investigating officer to be appointed to add offences U/s.307 and 120(B) of IPC against the accused and to conduct an impartial investigation etc.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the prayer of the petitioner is not legally sustainable as the petitioenr has no right to insist that a particular agency or an officer of his choice to investigate the crime. Besides he has no right to seek for a direction to issue necessary instructions to the Investigating Officer to incorporate penal provision of his choice. Hence the above writ petition may kindly be dismissed in-limine.
3. It is respectfully submitted that Cr.No.790/2010 U/s.324, 326 r/w 34 IPC was registered under Section 324, 326 r/w 34 IPC at Vadakkancherry Polcie Station on the strength of the statement given by one Mr.nandakumar on 25.08.2010. The above named Nandakumar is a relative of the petitioenr herein. The brief of the case is that on 25.08.2010 at 00.45 hrs some un-identified persons attacked the petitioenr herein while he was proceeding along the road near one Mr.Thampan's residence at Vadakkancherry. the eptitioenr was returning after attending a function in connection with Onam celebrations at Vadakkancherry. he was attacked by using wooden stick and as a result, sustained serious head injuries as well as fractures to both knees(patilla).
4. It is submitted that the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Mr.Mohanan, Vadakkancherry P.S on getting information visited the Daya Hospital, Trissur, wherein the injured was admitted. The above Sub Inspector recorded the statement of the victim while he was in the ICU. The ivnestigation was thereafter entrusted with Mr.Alias, Assistant SUb Inspecotr of Polcie, vadakkancherry P.S.
5. It is submitted that the above named Alias, ASI of Polcie had conducted the preliminary investigation of the case from 26.08.2010 till 28.10.2010. he prepared Mahazar as show. The investigating officer seized the wooden stick used for inflicting the injuries to the victim. The Investigating Officer further recorded the statement of 6 more witnesses who were residing in and around the scene of crime.
6. It is submitted that Mr.J.Mathews, Sub Inspector of Polcie, Vadakkancherry Police Station took over the ivnestigation of the case on 28.8.2010. He visited Daya Hospital, Trissur and recorded the statement of the victims. He had further questioned and recorded the statement of Dr.Brahmaputran, Medical Officer who was treating the injured and ascertained that the injury sustained by the victim of a sgrievous nature. The Doctor opined that more than oen persons were involved in the attack. Accordingly Sec.326 and 34 IPC were added to the case along with 324 IPC and report in this regard has been submitted before the Hon'ble JFCM Court, Alathur.
7. It is submitted that Mr.J.Mathews, SI of Polcie Vadakkancherry PS conducted the investigation till 31.12.2010. During the investigation he had questioned 26 witnesses including the complainant and recorded the statement. He had also collected wound certificate from Daya Hospital. However, in spite of earnest effots takeny by the investigating officer, no evidence could be gathered regarding the identity of the accuse dpersons. In the circumstances he had submitted a report to the DYSP, ALathur throught the Cirlce Inspector of Police, Vadakkancherry requesting sanction to refer the case as undetected. Accordingly sanction was accorded prupusant thereon after serving RC notice to Mr.Nandakumar, the defacto complainant Final report was submitted before the Hon'ble JFCM Court, ALathur, 31.12.2010.
8. It is submitted that thereupon the petitioenr had submitted a complaint before the State Police Chief and District Police Chief, palakkad complaining tha the investigation of the case was not satisfactory. After verifying the CD file the District Police Chief has found various irregularities in the invesatigation and orderd to re- open the case vide order No.G/22864/2011 P dt.25.6.2011. The investigation had been entrusted to the DySupdt. of Police, Crime Detachment, Palakkad. The then Dy.Supdt. of Police, Crime Department Sri.T.S.Joseph has thus taken over the ivnestigation on 28.6.2011 and submitted report before the Hon'ble JFCM Court, ALathur. He conducted ther investigation from 28.6.2011 to 1.3.2012. He had visited the place of occurrence at Vadakkancherry and surroundings areas. During investigaiton he had questioned 31 new witnesses and recorded their statements. He had also questioned witnesses whow ere questioned by the prvious investigation officers but didn't record their statements since they had nothing to say more than what they had stated earlier. Since the victim stated that Cash worth `.23,000/- and Gold Chain weighing 2½ Sovereign have been robbed amidst of assault, legal opinion was sought from the Dy.Director of Prosecution.
9. It is submitted that Sri.P.K.Vijayappan, Dy.Supdt of Police, Crime Detachment, Palakkad, predecesor of Sri.T.S.Joseph, Dy.Supdt of Police had taken over the ivnestigation of the case on 18.3.2012. he had questioned Smt.Amminikutty @ Jayasree Menon, wife of the victim, and recorded her statement on 10.4.2013. As ordered by the State Police Chief, he had submitted a progress report on the investigaiton of the case through District Police Chief on 30.5.2013.
10. It is submitted that this respondent had taken over the investigation of the case 04.08.2013. he conducted the ivnestigation by questioning more witnesses including the victim Sri.Krishna Menon. Even though a detailed investigaiton carried out and strenuous efforts ahve been taken to detect the case no evidence regarding the accused has been found out yet. As ordered by the State Police Chief to form a special squad for investigation of the case vide vide order No.D5/84185/2003 PHQ, Tvpm dtd.3.8.2013, a Special Squad was formed under the leadership of this respondent consisting the following members. (1) Murugadas, GSI, Crime Detachment, Palakkad (2) Mohana Krishnan, Sr.CPO 3912, Crime Detachment, Palakkad (3) Johnson Lobo, Sr.CPO 4024, Crime detachment, palakkad (4) Muhammed Sr CPO 3797, Vadakkanchery Police Station and (5) Suresh, Sr CPO 3989, Mamgalam Dam PS. During the course of ivnestigation of the case while questioning the eprsons who were with Krishna Menon on the date of occurrence and suspected people living in the neighbouring area informed that they were ready for “Polygraph Test” and written agreement has been obtained. Further “Polygraph Test” of suspected peersons has to be conducted.
11. It is submitted that since the victim Krishna Menon has not stated about the robbery of cash and gold ornaments to the first investigation officer (Sri.J.Mathews, Sub Inspector of Polcie, Vadakkancherry PS who visited him at Daya Hospital, Thirssur), veracity of his further statement reflects some suspicion and it has to be subjected for further more verification.
12. It is respectfully submitted that on investigaiton, it is revealed that, petitioner Krishnamenon and his wife have been living separately for the last 10 years and a divorce petition was filed by his wife Smt.Jayasree Menon. However the decision of the Hon'ble Court was in favour of the husband. At present he has no contact with his wife and children. As a result, ther elatives of his wife might have some enimity towards krishnamenon who is living alone at Chennai without looking after his wife and children.
13. It is submitted that since the preplanned incident occurred during midnight at an isolated place, there was no eye witnesses. A Polygraph test need to be conducted and petitioner's sons who are living at Maharashtra and tamilnadu are to be questioned.
14. It is submitted that sincere and earnest efforts have been taken to apprehend the culprit. However no evidence could be collected regarding the ieentity of the accused. In the circumstances, to complete the ivnestigation and to file a final report at least 3 more months time may kindly be granted.
All the facts stated above are true and correct.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in Ext.P20, the fifth respondent had informed the difficulty in tracing out the persons and the difficulties faced by the petitioner and though he is having some suspicion about certain persons, they are not able to trace out the real person involved in the crime. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that now in the statement filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Palakkad, it was mentioned that the suspected persons have expreseed their willingness to undergo a lie detection test or polygraph test. Further, they wanted at least three months for completing the investigation and filing a final report. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of such undertaken given in the statement, for the time being, that can be recorded and the petition can be disposed of.
5. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that effective steps are being taken for conducting the investigation and they will take all efforts to complete the investigation and file final report within three months. Considering the fact that now the investigation is being conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment and also on going through the statement filed by the Investigating Officer, it is seen that all possible steps are being taken by them with all earnestness, there is no necessity to change the investigation agency as claimed in the petition. So the undertaking in paragraph 14 of the statement filed by the fifth respondent that they will be able to complete the investigation and file final report at least within three months’ time is recorded and the petition is disposed of accordingly leaving open the right of the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities if the out come of the investigation is not satisfactory.
With the above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.
sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV