Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 64079
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
P.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – Respondent
WP(C) 26298/2013
P.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN [PARTY IN PERSON], SMT.ASHA BABU, SRI.S.M.PRASANTH, SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR SR., SRI.G.RENJITH
The court established that the Human Rights Commission requires new material evidence to justify reopening investigations into closed cases.
Headnote:
Investigation - Human Rights - Protection of Human Rights Act - Section 36 - Summary: The court reviewed provisions relating to human rights and the discretion of the Human Rights Commission (KHRC) under the Protection of Human Rights Act, emphasizing the necessity for new evidence to justify further investigation into a closed case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the KHRC's refusal to order a re-investigation into his son's death, concluding it was a suicide linked to alleged abetment by the 4th respondent. The initial investigations concluded suicide without finding complicity from the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims of coercion against the 4th respondent. Multiple agencies concluded the death was a suicide, and no additional evidence warranted further investigation. Past investigations had been thorough and conclusive, thus denying the petition.
Issues: Whether the KHRC's decision to reject a re-investigation into the death of the petitioner's son was justified, considering the previous investigations and the absence of new evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without new evidence or substantial grounds indicating error in prior investigations, the KHRC's discretion to order further inquiry was correct. The passage of time and previous conclusive findings further supported the dismissal.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is an octogenerian who has knocked on the doors of this Court seeking to quash the order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, refusing to order a re-investigation into the death of his son. A further direction is sought to entrust the investigation of Crime No.44/2005 of Pattambi Police Station to the CBCID.
2. On 22.01.2005, petitioner's son died, while undergoing treatment at the Alshifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna. The reason for the death was stated to be suicide by consuming sleeping pills on 14.01.2005. Contending that the death of petitioner's son was due to abetment by the 4th respondent, petitioner and his wife approached various authorities.
3. The investigation into the crime stated that petitioner’s son committed suicide and closed the matter. Thereafter, a petition was filed before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (for short ‘KHRC’), alleging suspicious circumstances leading to the death of his son. By order dated 28.07.2009 in HRMP No.1304 of 2005, the Commission directed an investigation to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch. Though the Crime Branch had taken over the investigation in the meantime, the order of KHRC was challenged by the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.26027/2009 before this Court. By judgment dated 19.03.2013, this Court quashed the aforesaid order of the Commission and allowed the writ petition and also directed the Commission to restore the petition back to its files and dispose of the same afresh, after granting an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Since, pursuant to the order of KHRC, CBCID had taken over the investigation, the judgment also interdicted the CBCID from proceeding with the investigation. However, the judgment further observed that, notwithstanding the said finding, the State Government will be at liberty to consider on its own, the necessity to order any further investigation into the crime. Thereafter, by order dated 30.07.2013, the KHRC closed the petition without making any recommendation. It was observed in the said order as follows :- “After final report was filed, petitioner ought to have filed a protest complaint and resorted to the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, the Commissioner is of the opinion that from the facts available, it cannot be stated that because respondent filed a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, he has abetted suicide of the petitioner's son. The Commission also cannot order a re-investigation when no additional materials are produced warranting further investigation in the case. Death of the petitioner's son occurred more than eight years ago and no purpose also will be served by a re-investigation especially after considering the FI Statement and evidence available to this Commission. Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act also acts against the petitioner. The Commission cannot recommend re- investigation by a special agency without any additional material that too, years after the incident and filing of the final report. It cannot be stated that there is any human right violation warranting interference in this matter by the Commission. Hence this petition is closed without making any recommendation as requested by the petitioner.”
4. The aforesaid order of the Commission is challenged in this writ petition, contending that, there are various suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of petitioner's son. It is also alleged that petitioner apprehends that his son committed suicide due to the intimidation, threat and coercion by the 4th respondent under the cover of forged cheques. It is also stated that the evidence on record convincingly proves the complicity of the 4th respondent in the suicide of petitioner's son. The petitioner further pleaded that the Human Rights Commission ought to have ordered a further investigation by the CBCID and that no proper investigation was conducted by any of the a
