J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 19th day of December, 2022 The distressed father of a 14 year old boy who died by cyanide like poisoning on 26.3.2011 in a bakery at Punalur at about 4 pm, has filed this writ petition to entrust the investigation to the 3rd respondent/CBI. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioner expired. The brother of the deceased boy was impleaded as additional petitioner.

2. The son of the petitioner, Rana Prathap Singh, was a Xth standard student of Government Higher Secondary School Punalur. On 26.3.2011 at 3.30 pm, the last day of SSLC examination, the deceased boy and his close friends went to Imperial Bakery, at Punalur to drink juice. While waiting for the juice, Rana Prathap Singh collapsed with an outcry and died all on a sudden.

3. A crime was registered by the Punalur police as Crime No.493/2011 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The autopsy report showed that the death was due to poisoning. Initially, the investigation was conducted by the Inspector of Police, Punalur. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.34375/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to entrust the investigation to CBCID. Again, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.40699/2016, dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the CBCID. This Court as per judgment dated 20.11.2017, allowed the writ petition in part and the investigation was entrusted to Smt. B. Sandhya, IPS, Additional Director General of Police, South Zone. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by Sri. V. Ajith, Deputy Commissioner of Police, as per the direction of Smt. B. Sandhya, IPS. He conducted a detailed investigation. About 142 witnesses were questioned and many documents and properties were seized. Even though the scientific report suggested that the death was homicide, the investigating team could not conclusively and pin-pointedly conclude that the death was homicide in pure and simple. The investigating team found that though there are needles of suspicion against the classmates of the deceased, there is nothing to conclude with absolute certainty that they are actually involved in the incident. In the absence of conclusive evidence as to the nature of death, Sri. Ajith, DCP prepared a report to treat the case as undetected. Accordingly, final report to that effect was submitted before the learned Magistrate.

4. According to the petitioner, no effective investigation was undertaken and conducted by various investigating agencies which conducted investigation to find out the truth of the unnatural death of his son. The petitioner asserted that it is not a case of suicide, but a case of homicide. The petitioner suspects the friends of the deceased who were along with him at the juice shop at the time of his death as persons responsible for the death of the deceased. It is the case of the petitioner that the investigating agency conducted the investigation in an arbitrary manner. It is in these circumstances that he has approached this Court with a prayer to entrust the investigation to the CBI, who is the 3rd respondent.

5. I have heard Sri. Jayapradeep V., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Smt. Mini Gopinath, the learned DSGI for CBI/3rd respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the initial investigation was conducted in a shabby manner and various material facts to rule out that it was a suicide and suggest that it was a homicide were not adverted to by the investigating agency. According to the learned counsel, the subsequent investigation conducted by the CBCID as well as the DCP was just a face saving measure and they also merely confirmed the findings of the initial investigating agency. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor Smt.T.V. Neema submitted that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is on the ba