The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to direct the respondents to reinvestigate the Crime No.729 of 2006 on the file of Inspector of Police, Vellakovil, Erode District.
2. The petitioner has filed an Affidavit supporting her petition stating that her husband, Raman was elected as President of Muthur Panchayat, under the reserved seat category. He hails from a socially oppressed, scheduled caste community. The same was a point of friction for some of the other community people. They had enmity with her deceased husband, who had not taken kindly to his growth in public and in public life. Further, her husband was on several occasions threatened by some party activists and other community people, who wanted to project themselves as leaders of the respective communities. They has openly stated that her husband should not contest in the Panchayat Elections. There were admonition from the prominent persons, that if he contests any panchayat elections, he would face dire consequences and be done away. These threats were made by a group headed by Muthukumar, Tangavelu and Palanisamy for which the petitioner's husband sent complaints to the higher Police officials to safeguard his life.
3. On 02.09.2006, the petitioner's husband had gone to attend to his party's meeting, where he was threatened by (1) Marimuthu (2) Muthukumar (3) Thangavelu (4) Palanisamy (5) Shanmugharaj (6)Thangavelu (7) Subbu. There was a wordily quarrel in the melly at the meeting. After that, while he was returning from the meeting to his home, he was murdered, but the petitioner was informed that her husband died in a road accident. Hence, the 2nd respondent, registered a case in Crime No.729 of 2006, under
sections 279 and
304(a) of IPC.
4. The petitioner has further alleged that the above said persons had plotted well and executed the murder of her husband, So, the petitioner made a detailed complaint before the respondent on 03.09.2006. Thereafter on 30.10.2006, the petitioner sent another complaint to the District Collector. Besides the Village people also had sent complaints. The matter was also informed to Human Rights Commission, but so far the petitioner could not get any remedy for her husband's death. Supporting her case, the petitioner has filed nine documents including complaint to the higher Police officials, FIR, etc.
5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter statement and narrated the facts of the case. On 02.09.2006, at 07.00PM, while the complainant Marimuthu was riding on a bicycle from Muthur to Kudumudi Road, he was knocked down by a Moped/TVS 50 Bearing Registration No.TN 33 T 5810 ridden by Panchayat President Raman, as a result of which the said Raman fell down on the Road and sustained severe head injuries. He was taken to the hospital by the deceased's son Karthik. Subsequently, he died, even after treatment. The police registered a case in Crime No.729 of 2006 for an offence under
Section 279 and
304(a) of IPC. The respondent investigated the matter in the presence of witnesses and conducted inquest over the dead body. The Doctor issued Accident Register Copy. Further, the respondent enquired (1) Marimuthu, Complainant (2) Subramani (3) Karthik, Son of the deceased (4) Kuppal, Petitioner/wife of the deceased (5) Senthil Kumar, Son of the deceased (6) Nallamuthu (7) Sundaraj (8) Veeran and (9) Podran and recorded their statements.
6. The TVS 50 Moped was given to a Motor Vehicles Inspector to verify the defects. Further, the respondent has stated that they are waiting for the Chemical Analysis Report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. Then only, they will be able to submit the final report before the Court.
7. Considering the petitioner's contentions and counter statements of the respondents and arguements advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned counsel for the State, and perusal of the existing records, the Court is of the opinion that the second respondent has done his duty and the Court is unable to find any discrepancies in the manner of investigation of the respondents/police officials. Under the circumstances, reinvestigation cannot be ordered. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No.26983 of 2007 is dismissed.
mps/mra To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Erode.
2. The Inspector of Police, Vellakovil Post, Erode District, (Crime No. 729 0f 2006)
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 104