IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, G. JAYACHANDRAN, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
R. Sankarasubbu & Others - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Chennai & Others - Respondent
H.C.P. No. 643 of 2011
Decided On : 04-02-2021
HABEAS CORPUS - MISSING PERSON - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 226 - 173 - 167 - The court discussed the habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus seeking a direction to produce the body of Sathish Kumar, aged 24 years. The court also discussed the investigation conducted by the C.B.I. and the subsequent formation of a Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) to thoroughly investigate the matter. The S.I.T. concluded that the death of Sathish Kumar was a homicide, and the accused remained undetected. The court directed the CB-CID (Metro), Chennai, to keep the case alive and proceed with the investigation without formal permission from the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition seeking a direction to produce the body of his missing son, Sathish Kumar, aged 24 years. The court monitored the investigation conducted by the C.B.I. and subsequently formed a Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) to thoroughly investigate the matter. The S.I.T. concluded that the death of Sathish Kumar was a homicide, and the accused remained undetected.
Finding of the Court:
The court accepted the finding of the S.I.T. that the death of Sathish Kumar was one of homicide and not one of suicide. The court directed the CB-CID (Metro), Chennai, to keep the case alive and proceed with the investigation without formal permission from the court.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the cause of Sathish Kumar's death and to identify the perpetrator. The court also addressed the request for custodial interrogation of suspects and the future course of action in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the S.I.T. report is a police investigation report on the death of Sathish Kumar and cannot form the foundation for a direction to the authorities to take action thereon. The court also emphasized that the task of detecting the offender should be entrusted to the CB-CID (Metro), Chennai.
Final Decision: The court directed the CB-CID (Metro), Chennai, to keep the case alive and proceed with the investigation without formal permission from the court. The CB-CID (Metro), Chennai, was also directed to file their status report every four months before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the body of Sathish Kumar, S/o Sankarasubbu, aged about 24 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.
1. On 10.06.2011, this habeas corpus petition was filed by Thiru.R.Sankarasubbu, Advocate, seeking the relief of production of the body and person of his son Sathish Kumar, aged 24 years. As per the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner, on 06.06.2011, Sathish Kumar met the Controller of Examinations of Dr.Ambedkar Law University and made a request to furnish provisional certificate to enrol himself before the Tamil Nadu State Bar Council, Chennai, on completion of his Law course. The next day, i.e., on 07.06.2011, his son Sathish Kumar came along with him to the High Court and returned home. After dinner, about 9.00 p.m., he left home in his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 02 AQ 6869. Since Sathish Kumar did not return home, the petitioner tried to contact him through his cell number 98846 26124, but, there was no response. Immediately, about one hour past midnight, i.e. 1.00 a.m. of 08.06.2011, he met the Commissioner of Police and requested him to find out his son Sathish Kumar by tracing his whereabouts with the help of the cell phone tower location by the Cyber Crime police. The Commissioner accordingly referred the matter to the Cyber Crime police and about 2.00 a.m., they were able to locate the motor cycle of the petitioner’s son near I.C.F. North Colony Lake and the cell phone kept in the motor cycle pouch. Based on the written complaint given by the petitioner, a ‘man missing’ complaint was registered by the second respondent police, viz., Thirumangalam Police Station, in Crime Number 926 of 2011 on 08.06.2011. On seeing the abandoned motorcycle and cell phone, apprehending danger to the life of his son, the petitioner had approached this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. In his affidavit, the petitioner has specifically stated that due to lack of manpower, the Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Police Station (second respondent) is not conducting any effective scientific investigation to secure his son and hence, he is left with no other option, but, to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
3. On 10.06.2011, when this habeas corpus petition came up for hearing, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Commissioner of Police (first respondent) to form a special team immediately for tracing Sathish Kumar and adjourned the hearing to 13.06.2011. On that day, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 reported to this Court that five teams were formed and serious efforts were being taken to trace Sathish Kumar. Recording the same, the hearing of the petition was adjourned to 16.06.2011.
4. Meanwhile, on 13.06.2011, by 4.00 p.m., a TV news channel broadcast the news of a male body floating in the ICF Lake near ICF Railway Police Rest Room. Later, the body was identified as that of Sathish Kumar. Hence, the petitioner immediately approached this Court by filing M.P.No.1 of 2011, with a prayer to issue an interim direction to the first respondent to conduct post mortem of Sathish Kumar’s body by a team of doctors comprising forensic experts and a doctor of his choice and also to videograph the post mortem. The hearing of this habeas corpus petition along with M.P. No.1 of 2011 was advanced and was heard by the Division Bench on 14.06.2011.
5. After paying its anxious consideration to the submissions made, this Court constituted a special team of 3 doctors, including a doctor of the petitioner’s choice. The special team was instructed to videograph the entire post mortem examination and file a copy of the report to the Court soon after the conclusion of post mortem. Accordingly, post mortem report dated 15.06.2011 was submitted to the Court by the special
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.