IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.42581/2011 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
MRS. SHREEPARNA CHAKROVARTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O LATE MINAL CHAKROVARTY A/43, KOEL NAGAR, ROURKELA 769014 ORISSA (BY SRI THOMAS V PETER, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER J P NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE.
2. THE DG & IGP NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. SAHANA BASU W/O LATE SRI SANDIP CHAKROVARTHY NO.201, 2ND FLOOR, RAJALAXMI APARTMENT, 24TH MAIN J P NAGAR 5TH PHASE, BANGALORE (LAST KNOWN ADDRESS) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S S MAHENDRA, AGA. FOR R1 & R2 SRI C N SANGOLLI, ADV. FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE R2 TO REGISTER A CASE & ENTRUST THE MATTER TO COD, BANGALORE FOR INVESTIGATION AND DIRECT THE COD, BANGALORE TO RE-INVESTIGATE OF THE MATTER & FILE A DETAILED REPORT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking that mandamus be issued to respondent No.2 to register a case and entrust the matter to COD, Bangalore, for investigation. The petitioner is also seeking that the COD be directed to reinvestigate the matter and file a detailed report.
2. The petitioner is a resident of Rourkela in the State of Orissa is before this Court in this petition seeking that the cause of death of her son be reinvestigated by a different agency viz., COD. The case of the petitioner is that her son Sandip Chakrovarty had come to Bengaluru about 6 years prior to his death and had secured a job at HDFC Life Insurance, Koramangala. The petitioner had married respondent No.3 on 17.01.2010. They were thereafter residing together in J.P Nagar, Bengaluru.
3. On 17.04.2010, the petitioner’s son spoke to her over phone at about 12.30 p.m. and had informed her that he had just reached home and could not call her earlier as he was watching cricket match with his friends. On 18.04.2010, the petitioner received a telephone call that her son had committed suicide by hanging himself at his residence. The petitioner thereafter came over to Bengaluru and the Postmortem was also conducted. The petitioner however contends that her son could not have committed suicide and therefore she suspects that respondent No.3 had a role in the death of her son and hence, reinvestigation is required.
4. In the petition while seeking for such reinvestigation, the petitioner contends that the investigation was not properly done and that her son did not exhibit any suicidal tendency and therefore it cannot be accepted that death is by committing suicide. The records relating to the investigation was secured. It is seen that the petitioner at the first instance had made a statement wherein it was stated that she had been informed that her son met with an accident and when she came to Bengaluru, she learnt about the death. In that light, she has sought that Post Mortem be conducted.
5. From the Post Mortem report dated 19.04.2010 which is available in the file, the opinion for the cause of death is indicated as ‘Asphyxia’ as a result of hanging. Insofar as the other relevant observations, there is no other injuries or other marks referred to in the body except the Ante mortem ligature mark of hanging. If in that light, the statement as recorded by the jurisdictional police is taken note, it is seen that at the point when the son of the petitioner had died, respondent No.3 no doubt was in the premises who was utterly shaken, was weeping and it is only after the others had come, further process had taken place. Taking into consideration the Post Mortem report and also taking note of the photographs of the scene of occurrence, it would largely indicate that the death was due to hanging.
6. Except for the belief expressed by the petitioner that according to her, her son could not have committed suicide, there is no other strong motive that has been put forth to shift the blame on respondent No.3 to contend that her son is likely to have been killed by her nor has the petitioner referred to any earlier incidents to which the petitioner suspects that respondent No.3 could be the reason for doing away the son of the petitioner.
7. Therefore, in that circumstance, there is no other material to indicate that the material already available on record cannot be relied upon. Merely because the petitioner as a mother is unable to accept the fact of death of her son and in that regard, though this Court is sympathetic to the plight of the petitioner, that by itself would not be sufficient for this Court to direct that any further investigation is to be conducted or doubt the manner in which the investigation has been carried on by the jurisdictional Police. Therefore in the present facts and circumstances, the prayer as made in the instant petition cannot be acceded to by this Court.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms