JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to conduct re-postmortem and to take appropriate legal action based on the petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2021 and direct the second respondent to appoint a competent senior police officer to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner's son Manikandan was apprehended by the police personnel attached to Keelathooval Police Station, Ramanathapuram District on 04.12.2021. He was taken to the police station. According to the petitioner, she was called to police station a few hours later and instructed to take her son home.

3. The case of the petitioner is that her son complained that he was beaten up in the police station. Manikandan died at his residence on the very next day. The petitioner's specific allegation is that her son's death is directly attributable to the custodial treatment which he received within the premises of the Keelathooval Police Station. In this regard, Crime No.258 of 2021 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Postmortem was done at Mudukulathur Government Hospital.

4. According to the petitioner, postmortem was not properly done and that only a re-postmortem would reveal the truth. Though such a request was made in this regard, since it did not elicit a favorable response, the present writ petition came to be filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. In particular, he would emphasise that the directions given by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.12608 of 2020 dated 02.12.2020 (Santhosh Vs. The District Collector and others) were not followed.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that during the postmortem process, the victim's family was fully associated. Dr.Prabakaran of Government Hospital, Keelakarai was permitted to participate when the postmortem took place. The victim's family had suggested the name of Dr.Prabakaran. The entire postmortem was duly videographed. Neither external injury nor any internal injury was found. No injuries were found on the private parts of the deceased also. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, everything was conducted in a transparent manner and therefore, there is absolutely no justification in seeking re-postmortem.

7. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. I make it clear that the materials available as of now are absolutely insufficient to point any needle of suspicion at the police. Re-postmortem cannot be ordered for the asking. The person demanding a second postmortem must make out a case therefor. He must catalogue the omissions and defects in the first postmortem. The conscience of the court must be satisfied that there is a need for a second postmortem for the purpose of arriving at the truth. Minor infractions of procedure will not impel the court to order re-postmortem. The issue must go to the root of the matter. Something fundamental must have happened to shock the court's conscience.

8. Now that the yardstick has been laid down, let me see if the petitioner has met this threshold. The learned Additional Advocate General would strongly urge that since the death of the petitioner's son had taken place in her house, the death in question cannot be termed as custodial death. The learned Additional Advocate General may be technically right. But the fact remains that some few hours prior to his death, he was in the custody of the police. The petitioner alleges a nexus between the two. Therefore, respondents ought to have treated the matter as if the case pertains to one of custodial death. Vide order dated 02.12.2020 in WP(MD)No.12608 of 2020 (Santhosh vs. The Distri